So driving without a license isn't a crime anymore if you're an illegal alien

[kranky]

What does it actually say? Preventing immediate arrest and impoundment is not the same as not allowing citations.

Here's the digest of the bill:

Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to establish, by ordinance, a combined vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoint program to check for violations of motor vehicle exhaust standards and driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses. Existing law authorizes a peace officer, whenever the peace officer determines, among other things, that a person was driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a drivers license, to immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of his or her vehicle for an impoundment period of 30 days, or, if the person is currently without a valid drivers license, to remove the vehicle for a shorter period of time upon issuance of a notice to appear if the registered owner or the registered owners agent presents a currently valid drivers license and proof of current vehicle registration, or upon order of the court.

This bill would require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop. The bill would, notwithstanding other provisions of law, require that a peace officer or any other authorized person not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint, established pursuant to these provisions or any other law, if the drivers only offense is, among other offenses, the failure to hold a valid drivers license. The bill would require, during the conduct of a sobriety checkpoint, a law enforcement officer to make a reasonable attempt to identify the registered owner of the vehicle in order to release the vehicle to the registered owner if he or she is a licensed driver or to a licensed driver authorized by the registered owner.

The bill would require that if a notice to appear is issued, the name anddrivers license number of the licensed driver to whom the vehicle was released be listed on the officers copy of the notice to appear issued to the unlicensed driver and would require if a vehicle cannot be released, that the vehicle be removed, as specified.

(2) Existing law authorizes a peace officer to either immediately arrest a person and cause the removal and seizure of the vehicle he or she was operating or, if the vehicle is involved in a traffic collision, cause the removal and seizure of the vehicle, without the necessity of arresting the person, if the peace officer determines that the person was driving the vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked or without having been issued a license. Existing law subjects a vehicle to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, asspecified. Existing law requires a vehicle to be impounded for at least 30 days if its driver is unable to produce a valid drivers license, except as specified.

The bill would require a vehicle removed pursuant to the provisions of the bill to be released to the registered owner of the vehicle, or the registered owners agent, as specified, upon a showing of proof of a currently valid drivers license and vehicle registration. Because this bill would expand the duties of local law enforcement officials and the scope of an existing DUI checkpoint program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Because the failure to comply with these provisions would constitute an infraction under the Vehicle Code, the bill would also impose a state-mandated local program, by creating a new crime.

(3) The California Constitution requires thestate to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

[end digest]

On a side note, you can't really lay this at the feet of the sponsor; it passed the Assembly 64-12 and the Senate 30-7. Apparently many CA legislators think this is a fine idea.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, not if they happen to discover evidence of the robbery within the narrow confines of what they are allowed to do at the checkpoint. Under SCOTUS 4th Amendment doctrine, a checkpoint has to be set up for a specific, narrow purpose. However, if, in the course of carrying out that narrow purpose, evidence of a different crime is discovered, then yes of course the person can be arrested. Which is why the arrests for no license are probably OK in this context, as would be other arrests if the police happened to encounter evidence of different crimes. However, it has been asserted here that a checkpoint can be set up to just randomly detain people for purposes of detecting whatever crimes they might find. That is not allowed.

- wolf

That was what I thought but the OP cites comments about illegals. In that case the driver has committed an illegal act. This only would make an impact if illegals are given a free pass which I would not be surprised to find true.