ROBERT MANN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2024, No. B328374) 2024 WL 4834847, review denied (Nov. 20, 2024)
Summary: The State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) appeal from a judgment requiring it to revise its vehicle impound procedures. CHP contends the injunction improperly requires it to contravene valid statutes, relies on inapplicable case law, conflicts with the existing statutory scheme, and mandates unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.
Background
This action challenged CHP’s vehicle impound policies under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, which allows taxpayers to challenge governmental actions that allegedly constitute illegal or wasteful expenditures of public funds.
Mann claimed CHP’s impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. After a bench trial, a permanent injunction issued requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ present ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and revise its notice form, CHP 180, to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles. The court found that CHP’s existing policies violated due process by providing inadequate notice and failing to account for indigent owners’ inability to pay.
The injunction requiring ability-to-pay hearings is improper
The trial court issued an injunction requiring “CHP officers consider the present ability to pay towing, storage, and any other fees in vehicle storage hearings under Vehicle Code § 22852 and in vehicle returns pursuant to the November 2021 policy memorandum.” The court based this injunction on People v. Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).
We have previously disagreed with Dueñas’s analysis and have concluded it was wrongly decided. (People v. Hicks, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th 320, review granted.) Due process does not require a finding of an ability to pay prior to the imposition of fines or fees. (Id. at pp. 326–329.) A violation of due process is shown when the imposition of fines or fees will result in the denial of the party’s access to the courts or result in the party’s incarceration. (Ibid.) This case concerns vehicle impounds, not access to court or incarceration, so the due process argument fails. The principles in Dueñas do not apply to the statutory scheme for impounding vehicles for several other reasons.
The trial court’s requirement that CHP conduct ability-to-pay hearings and potentially waive towing and storage fees directly contravenes the express language and intent of Vehicle Code section 14602.6, subdivision (i). The statute provides registered owners “shall remain responsible for any towing and storage charges related to the impoundment.” (Veh. Code, § 14602.6, subd. (i).)
Vehicle Code section 14602.6 has not been declared unconstitutional by any appellate court and lower courts are bound to apply the law as written. In its injunction, the trial court required CHP to consider waiving towing and storage charges based on ability to pay. In so doing, the trial court rewrote section 14602.6 to create an exception for indigent vehicle owners.
Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution prohibits administrative agencies, including CHP, from refusing to enforce a statute on the grounds of unconstitutionality unless an appellate court has made such a determination. The trial court has placed CHP in the untenable position of potentially violating this constitutional provision.
The Legislature made a policy decision that vehicle owners should bear the financial burden of impoundment. The trial court was obligated to apply the statute as written. Its failure to do so constitutes reversible error.
The notice revisions are unwarranted
In its decision, the trial court ordered CHP to “revise the CHP 180 form to advise vehicle owners of the procedures for vehicle returns set forth in the November 2021 policy memorandum.” Due process does not require additional explanation that goes beyond statutorily mandated noted requirements.
Due process also does not require agencies to provide “individualized notice of the procedures for seeking return of seized property” beyond what is currently mandated by statute. (City of West Covina v. Perkins (1999) 525 U.S. 234, 242–243.) The CHP 180 form provides all information required by Vehicle Code section 22852, including the right to a hearing and how to request one. The form has been found to comply with due process because it identifies the car owner’s right to an administrative hearing and the impounding agency’s statutory burden of providing the ground for impoundment. (Thompson v. City of Petaluma (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 101, 107.)
The trial court’s order for revisions is not required to satisfy due process and it was error to mandate additional language.
Disposition
The judgment is reversed.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.