A Report on Racial Profiling, Pretextual Stops, And Other Violations of Law By the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

During Enforcement of the Departments Vehicle Impound Policy

February 12, 2013

Prepared by: The Los Angeles Chapter of The National Lawyers Guild
Supporting Organizations: Community with Power for Change, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Downtown Associated Youth Services, Downtown Church Network, Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization, Instituto de Educacin Popular del Sur de California, Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, National Immigrant Rights Coalition, Roosevelt Elementary School, St. Lukes Episcopal church, Second Samoan congregational church, Unitarian Universalist Church Long Beach

A Report on Racial Profiling, Pretextual Stops, And Other Violations of Law by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department During Enforcement of the Departments Vehicle Impound Policy INTRODUCTION This report documents serious abuses of police power, including racial profiling and denial of due process rights, by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) and, particularly, one Sheriffs Deputy from the LASD Transit Services Bureau1 while performing duties in the City of Long Beach. These unlawful practices occur during enforcement of California Vehicle Code (CVC) 14602.6. This Vehicle Code section gives law enforcement limited authority to impound cars for 30 days when the individual has never been licensed or the drivers license has been suspended or revoked. Information in this report was obtained in interviews conducted on January 22, 2013, at a legal clinic held at Roosevelt Elementary School in Long Beach. The targets of abuse by the Sheriffs Department are Latino men and women who are unable to obtain a California drivers license due to their immigration status. They may have been licensed in other states or countries or they may now have expired licenses. These are not individuals whose licenses have been suspended or revoked. In a State which prides itself on diversity, these victims of the Sheriffs Department impound policy are the targets of racial profiling by law enforcement. Racial profiling is the practice of targeting individuals for police or security detention based on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are likely to engage in unlawful behavior. This report presents evidence of racial profiling during traffic stops in which Deputy X targets cars fitting a stereotypical profile of the unlicensed immigrant driver: Latinos driving old vehicles in low-income neighborhoods, Latinos driving cars with religious objects or air fresheners hanging from mirrors, Latinos picking or dropping off their children at schools in low income neighborhoods etc. We interviewed victims of racial profiling who were pulled over when there was no probable cause for the traffic stop and the victim was simply asked to show a drivers license. On other occasions, victims were pulled over on a pretext and told they were stopped to be given a warning about a non-existent traffic or equipment violation such as checking a car seat. Latino drivers were also routinely targeted for minor violations such as a cracked tail light or tinted windows. Vehicles have also been impounded when the vehicle was legally parked, not obstructing the public way, or could be driven away by a licensed driver. In all of the above instances, once the vehicle is stopped, the Deputy used the opportunity to determine that the driver does not have a current California license. The driver was then cited for CVC 12500 (no license) and the vehicle impounded for 30 days. The Sheriffs Deputy who is repeatedly engaging in racial profiling of immigrant drivers is identified in this report as Deputy X.
1

Racial profiling violates both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The law requires probable cause for a traffic stop; the United States Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F. 3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, in order to justify an investigative traffic stop, the police must have reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic law has been violated or other criminal conduct is occurring. United States v. Lopez-Soto (9th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 1011, 104-05. It is therefore unlawful to stop a driver simply to check the status of his or her license. See also, Cal. Vehicle Code 14607.6. Direct evidence of racial bias during traffic stops was collected during our interviews at Roosevelt Elementary School. In one instance Deputy X admonished a driver for not being able to speak English and for not having legal status. On another occasion Deputy X stated, Shut up or I will have you sent to Mexico. When another driver explained that she did not have a license because she was in the process of applying for a license through the California Dream Act, the Deputy stated she had given her spot away, that she would not be able to obtain a drivers license and that she wouldnt be getting [her] DREAM Act anymore. In addition to racially profiling immigrant drivers, this Deputy X is also ignoring existing law. Several Federal court rulings including Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d, 858 (9th Cir. 2005) state that the automatic seizure of a vehicle on the sole charge of driving without a valid license is a violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such seizures conflict with the principles of the Community Caretaking Doctrine, which generally only allow police to impound where necessary to ensure that the location or operation of a vehicle does not jeopardize public safety. Additionally, in violation of the law, Deputy X is also impounding cars when the driver has a current or expired out of state (e.g. Utah) or out of jurisdiction (e.g. Mexico) license. The 9th Circuit has held that it would be a violation of state law to impound a vehicle driven by individuals with a current or expired license issued by a local or foreign jurisdiction. Salazar et al. v. city of Maywood et al (9th Cir. Feb.8, 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2519. The Sheriffs Department impound policy is causing great hardship in the Long Beach community. When an individual is poor or living from paycheck to paycheck, it is often an impossible feat to retrieve a car that has been impounded for 30 days at a cost of $1,500.00 or more. As a consequence of the inability to pay impound fees, the impounded vehicle is often sold at a lien sale and the individuals credit may be ruined because of the impound fee debt. After the vehicle is towed, lives are often shattered. Without their vehicles, parents are unable to get to their jobs, drive their children to school, or get to medical appointments. When impound victims go to the Sheriffs Station to try and get their cars back they are rarely informed of their right to an impound hearing. Furthermore, the towing companies

may threaten impound victims with ruined credit, further exacerbating the stress and hardship caused by the loss of a familys vehicle. The Sheriffs Department should follow the lead of other major law enforcement agencies in California that have adopted fairer and more humane impound policies that minimize use of punitive 30 day impounds, including the police departments of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Sonoma, Berkeley and the City of Los Angeles. As in the cities mentioned above, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department should adopt a policy to: Allow unlicensed drivers to call a licensed driver to retrieve the car or park the car legally, and sign a waiver form releasing the County from liability once the car is safely parked; Refrain from impounding vehicles for 30 days when the drivers has an expired California license, or an out of state or foreign jurisdiction license; and Consider economic hardship as a basis for a waiver of administrative release fees.

Thanks to National Lawyers Guild volunteers Marissa Nuncio, Esq., Gilbert Saucedo, Esq., Kim Repecka, Esq., Colleen Flynn and John Cromshow for their assistance in compiling this report. For more information contact: Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. cablaw@hotmail.com February 12, 2013

Background
Complaint by Mr. Chris Lund, Principal of Roosevelt Elementary School Mr. Chris Lund is an Elementary School Principal in the City of Long Beach at Roosevelt Elementary School. In January 2012 he first began to receive complaints from parents regarding frequent impounds by Deputy X. Principal Lund contacted the Sheriffs Station located at 2200 Imperial Highway, and was asked if he wanted to file a complaint. He said that he would prefer to meet and speak with Deputy X rather than resorting to filing a complaint. He made an appointment to speak with the Deputy at the school on or around January 31, 2012. Before the meeting began, Deputy X, at his usual post in front of the school, ordered another parent vehicle impound. The Deputy declined to meet in the school office and the discussion occurred in front of the school while parents dropped off their children. Principal Lund explained to Deputy X that, because the school is temporarily relocated, some parents that were once close to the school now must walk 2 miles one way in order to drop off their children. He explained the lack of busing to the area and the undue hardship that this created for the families. Deputy X asked Principal Lund., So you want me to break the law? Principal Lund said he did not want the Deputy to break the law, but that he understands that the Deputy has some discretion, especially in whether or not vehicles are impounded. Deputy X responded, Im going to enforce the law. Principal Lund said that the law should at least be enforced equally and pointed out stops were consistently of Hispanic parents and without probable cause. Deputy X reiterated that he would enforce the law and ended the meeting. Following this meeting, Principal Lund filed a complaint with the Sheriffs Department on behalf of 27 parents for harassment and discrimination. He spoke with the Deputys supervisors, Lieutenant Holloway and Sergeant Kianpour, both of whom said there would be an investigation. Shortly thereafter, they rendered a decision that the complaint was unfounded. The impounds of vehicles driven by parents at the school continued. On May 3, 2012 around 3:30 p.m., Principal Lund was leaving a school awards event. He was in the passenger seat while his Vice Principal was driving. Three teachers were in the backseat. The car was on Long Beach Boulevard, preparing to turn right on to Pacific Coast Highway. Deputy X rode up to the right side of the vehicle and looked over at Principal Lund. The car turned right and Deputy X immediately pulled the car over. The Deputy stated that he pulled the car over because there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk. While there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk, Long Beach Boulevard is six lanes wide; the pedestrian was in the other half of the crosswalk and was in no way endangered by the drivers turn. The Deputy asked the Vice Principal where she works. When she responded that she works at Roosevelt Elementary, Deputy X looked at Principal Lund in the passenger seat and said, Oh, I know you. Why did you file a complaint against me? Principal Lund said he had not felt satisfied with the results of their meeting. Deputy X told

Principal Lund, Thats not your job. Thats not your responsibility. He asked Principal Lund to step out of the vehicle. On the sidewalk, the Deputy continued to berate Principal Lund for reporting him and demanded answers about why he had done so for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. During this time, Principal Lund and the occupants of the vehicle observed two people run across the street, across the train tracks, and jump over the protective railings onto blue line station platforms. Eventually, Deputy X released the vehicle and its occupants without issuing a ticket for the purported illegal turn.

Racial Profiling by Sheriff Deputy X at Roosevelt Elementary School And Other Long Beach Locations.
All the drivers described in the summaries below are Latino. All the drivers were stopped by the same Sheriff Deputy who is called Deputy X in this report. Examples: (1) Ms. C is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. Her car was impounded by Deputy X on two different occasions. The first time was 9/3/2011 and the second time was 4/4/2012. First Impound: On 9/3/2011, Ms. C was parked in front of the school, waiting for her daughter. She was partially in a red zone, and Deputy X asked her to move her car because it was illegally parked. As she began to move her car, the Deputy immediately pulled her over. He said that it was related to her being parked illegally and he asked to see her license. When she told him that she did not have a license, he ordered the impound of her vehicle. He did not give her time to call a licensed driverthough one was available could have arrived within 5-10 minutes. He did not inform her of her right to a hearing and the car was held for thirty days. Second Impound: Ms. C was parked outside Roosevelt Elementary School in a legal parking spot, waiting in her car. She saw Deputy X ride up behind her and stop his motorcycle. He approached the back of her car with his keys out and bent towards the license plate. She yelled from the drivers seat to ask what he was doing. He came around to the side of the car and told Ms. C that she needed to have her registration stickers replaced because they were falling off. He asked to see her license. When she could not produce one, he asked her to step out of the car. When Ms. C exited her car, she saw that her registration stickers, which she had very recently replaced, appeared to have been partially scratched off. The Deputy ordered her vehicle impounded again. Again, she was not told about her right to a hearing nor was she given the opportunity to contact a licensed driver, though one was available. Her vehicle was impounded for 33 days because the thirtieth day fell on the Saturday before Martin Luther King Day, resulting in additional storage fees.Ms. Cs vehicle was registered and insured at the time of both impounds.

 (2) Mr. V#1 is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. Mr. Vs # 1s car was pulled over in mid-November 2012 by Deputy X on Pacific Boulevard for allegedly having for an illegal light on his vehicle. Mr. V#1 is unsure why he was stopped because all of his lights were in working order. Mr. V was stopped in front of his residential apartment complex after he had moved his vehicle from the parking lot of his building to the curb, where he then legally parked. The Deputy cited Mr. V#1 for the light and a violation of CVC 12500no license. The car was impounded for 30 days. Given that the stop was conducted in front of Mr. V#1s home, the decision to impound his vehicle violated the Community Caretaking Doctrine. In addition, the apartment manager, a licensed driver, offered to move the car back into the parking lot, an option Deputy X denied. Mr. V#1 went to the Sheriffs Station with a licensed driver to inquire about his options. He was told his vehicle would be held for 30 days; he was never informed about his right to an impound hearing. Mr. V#1s vehicle was registered and insured at the time of impound. (3) Mr. L is the driver and registered owner of the vehicles. His car was impounded by Deputy X on two different occasions. The first time was in December 2010 and the second time was in February 2011. First Impound: In December 2010, Mr. L was stopped by Deputy X on 9th and Locust Street. There was no probable cause for the traffic stop. When Mr. L asked why he had been stopped Deputy X informed him that he wanted to check his license. Mr. L told the Deputy that he did not have a California license but he did have an expired license from Mexico. The Deputy laughed and said, Good car. No license. Mr. L was cited for a violation of CVC 12500no license. No other violation was listed on the ticket. The vehicle could have been parked legally and safely on the street instead of being towed. Additionally, a friend with a California license was readily available to take the car. Instead, the car was impounded for thirty days and six people were left stranded on the street. At the end of 30 days Mr. L could not afford to pay the impound fee of $1,300. He lost his vehicle. Second Impound: Two months later Mr. L was again stopped by Deputy X. There was no probable cause for the stop. This time Mr. L was on 16th and Pine. Mr. L asked the Deputy what the problem was. The Deputy stated that he had seen Mr. L before and started to look around the truck. The Deputy then stated that he stopped Mr. L for a seat belt violation. However, no seat belt violation was listed on the ticket given to Mr. L during the stop. The Deputy then said, Oh, you have a nice truck and no drivers license. During the stop the Deputy asked Mr. L if he had paid his prior ticket. Mr. L said that he had paid the ticket. The Deputy said, If you had not paid the ticket I could have you deported. He took Mr. Ls keys and laughed at him. The Deputy cited Mr. L for failure to stop at a stop sign and CVC 12500--no license. Someone came by with a

California license and offered to drive the car. The Deputy refused to allow him to do so. The truck was impounded and Mr. L was left on the street. Mr. L paid $1,400 to retrieve the vehicle from the towing yard and $830.00 for the citation. At the time he was stopped, Mr. Ls vehicle was registered and insured. (4) Mr. V#2 is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. On 9/19/2012, Mr. V#2 was legally stopped at a red light at the intersection of 15th St and Long Beach Boulevard. His pregnant wife and two children were passengers in the car. He was taking his wife to a doctors appointment. When the light turned green, Mr. V#2 began to drive and was immediately pulled over by Deputy X. The Deputy said he had stopped Mr. V#2 to check if the child seats in his car were properly secured, which they were. Deputy X asked for Mr. V#2's license and registration. Mr. V#2 speaks Spanish but has limited English proficiency. When Mr. V#2 explained that he did not have a license, Deputy X informed him that he would be taking the car. Mr. V#2 called a bilingual friend, a California licensed driver, who arrived within five minutes. Deputy X refused to release the vehicle to Mr. V#2s friend. The car was legally parked, but Deputy X would not allow Mr. V#2 to leave his vehicle parked there. Deputy X ordered impound of the vehicle for 30 days and asked Mr. V#2s friend to convey the warning that, if he pulled Mr. V#2 over again, Mr. V#2 would not be able to get his car out of impound. Deputy X did not inform Mr. V#2 of his right to an impound hearing. After 20-30 minutes, the tow truck arrived and towed Mr. V#2s truck to an impound lot, leaving Mr. V#2 and his family by the side of the road. Mrs. V#2 took a bus to her doctors appointment and arrived an hour late. Mr. V#2 went to the Sheriffs station a few days later to ask about his vehicle. The Sheriffs station did not inform Mr. V#2 of his right to an impound hearing. Mr. V#2 works in construction and lost significant work and income due to the 30-day impound of his vehicle. After 30 days, he paid $1,300 for the release of his 1997 pick-up truck, which is worth approximately $3,500. At the time Mr. V was stopped the vehicle was registered and insured. (5) Mr. T is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. Mr. T. was stopped near Roosevelt Elementary School in November 2012 by a Los Angeles Sheriffs Department Deputy on a motorcycle. The Deputy informed him that the reason for the stop was that his lights were darkened and asked to see Mr. Ts license. Mr. T provided his expired Mexican driver license. The Deputy did not respond, but ordered the impound of Mr. Ts vehicle. The Deputy cited Mr. T for CVC 12500 (unlicensed driver) and for having darkened lights.

Mr. T called his wife, who has a California license, to pick up the car. Although she arrived before the tow truck, the Deputy would not release the vehicle to her. The car was legally parked during the stop, but the Deputy would not allow them to leave the car there. The tow truck arrived after about 20 minutes and the vehicle was impounded for 30 days. The Deputy did not inform Mr. T of his right to a hearing. When Mr. T went to the Sheriffs station to inquire about the status of his vehicle, he was not informed of his right to a hearing, but was only told that he could not have the car back. At the time Mr. T was stopped the vehicle was registered and insured. (6) Ms. P is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. On January 18, 2013, during daylight hours, Ms. P was leaving the McDonalds parking lot near 6th and Elm in the city of Long Beach. Ms. P stated that Deputy X had been observing her during this time. As Ms. P exited the parking lot, Deputy X pulled her over. He indicated that she should stop at a parking meter on the street to the right of the parking lot exit. Deputy X told Ms. P that he stopped her because her taillights were not good. She was cited for CVC 26101 (b) (installation of device to modify performance of lights) and CVC 12500 (unlicensed driver). She had not modified her taillight. Deputy X told Ms. P that her car would be impounded for 30 days. Ms. P asked Deputy X if she could have a licensed driver take her car. He told her she could not and that she should call someone to pick her up. Meanwhile, Ms. Ps passenger had called her own husband, who is a licensed driver. When the man arrived Deputy X would not let him drive Ms. Ps car away. Based on the way Deputy X had been looking at her before he stopped her, Ms. P believes that he had profiled her because she is a Hispanic woman. The impounding of her car has caused a hardship in that Ms. P lives a long distance from her place of employment. She has had to ask for rides because public transportation would require three hours of travel per day. (7) Ms. G is the driver and registered owner of the vehicle. Ms. G had her car impounded by Deputy X on January 7, 2013 when she was pulled over by Deputy X near the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Deputy X said he pulled her over to check whether her childs car seat was properly secured. CVC 27361 provides that a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects a violation of child passenger restraints may stop a vehicle transporting a child (within age or weight limits requiring a child passenger restraint system or safety belt). The child seat was properly secured behind the passengers side seat in the car. Ms. G soinformed Deputy X of that fact however, he did not check the seat himself. Instead, he asked Ms. G for her license. Ms. G told him she did not have one. The Deputy asked her why she did not have a license. Ms. G explained: she was in the process of applying for the DACA; planned to get a license through the California DREAM Act; but, had not been able to yet. The Deputy told Ms. G that she had given her spot away, that she

wouldnt be getting a driver license, and wouldnt be getting [her] DREAM Act anymore. Deputy X said Ms. G should call someone to pick her up. Ms. G called her friend, Ms. N, a licensed driver, who arrived within 15 minutes. The Deputy refused Ms. N.'s offer to drive the vehicle. Even though the car was parked in a legal parking spot when Ms. G the Deputy pulled her over, he ordered her vehicle impounded. The tow truck took 30-45 minutes to arrive. Ms. G received a Notice of Stored Vehicle, but no Storing Agency or phone number was listed on the back in order to request a hearing. The Deputy did not inform Ms. G of her right to a hearing. Ms. G has a daughter who attends Roosevelt Elementary and she currently walks her daughter to school, which takes approximately 45 minutes each way, for a total of 3 hours of walking each day. She also has an infant son with a congenital intestine disorder and asthma who requires frequent medical appointments, about once a week. As a result of the impound, she has lost her part time job as a caterer, where she made approximately $80 each day she was able to work. She is a single mother and her 1992 Honda Civic, valued at approximately $1000, was her only form of transportation. She will not be able to pay the impound fees of $1300 after the 30-day hold is up, but the watch commander refused to allow her a hearing more than 10 days after the impound, stating that the sheriffs department has no responsibility to make her aware of her right to a hearing. Ms. Gs vehicle was registered and insured at the time of the impound. (8) Ms. A (driver) & Ms. A's Mother (registered owner) On January 15, 2013, while Ms. A was refueling her car at a gas station on the corner of Long Beach Boulevard and PCH after dropping her daughter off at school, she observed Deputy X parked nearby. As Ms. A drove away, Officer X followed and pulled her over almost immediately. Deputy X asked to see Ms. As license and registration. Ms. A has limited English proficiency, but explained that she is licensed in Honduras and did not have the license with her. Deputy X said a license from another country was not valid here. He told her that he had stopped her for a window obstruction. When Ms. A communicated that she did not understand, Deputy X pointed at the aromatic flowers, which act as an air freshener, hanging from her rear view mirror. When Ms. A still did not understand, he yelled, Why dont you have any papers? and Why dont you speak English? at her. The Deputy determined that Ms. A did not have a California driver license, and he snatched her keys from her hand. Ms. A called her mother, who is the registered owner of the car and has a valid California driver license. Ms. As mother arrived within three minutes. The Deputy would not release the vehicle to Ms. As mother and instead cited Ms. A for a violation of CVC 12500--driving without a license--and for window obstruction and impounded the car for 30 days.

He did not inform Ms. A that she had a right to an impound hearing, nor did the registered owner receive notice of her right to an impound hearing by mail. Ms. A became aware of her right to a hearing after speaking with National Lawyers Guild attorneys, who requested a hearing on her behalf. During the hearing, the watch commander denied a lack of probable cause for the stop and denied that they could release the vehicle to its registered owner who is a licensed California driver. The car is currently impounded and will cost over $1,000 to release after 30 days have passed. At the time Ms. A was stopped the vehicle was registered and insured. Other Violations of Law by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department During Vehicle Impounds This report contains numerous violations of law by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department is not only violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution but also violating the Due Process rights of impound victims. The examples described above and the narrative below also illustrate the following violations: 1. Impounding vehicles whose drivers have expired or current out of state (Oregon) and out of jurisdiction (Mexico) licenses, Salazar et al. v. City of Maywood et al (9th Cir. Feb.8, 2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2519; 2. Denying impound hearings to impound victims, CVC 22852 (C); 3. Providing insufficient notice or NO notice of the right to an impound hearing; 4. Conducting legally defective impound hearings; 5. Failure to consider mitigating circumstances for release of the vehicle, (CVC 14602.6 (b)); and 6. Failure to maintain and publish a telephone number that provides information 24 hours a day about an impounded vehicle and the owners right to request a hearing. (CVC 14602.6(a)(2)).

Denial of Due Process by the Sheriffs Department During Impound Hearings

The Long Beach Impound Clinic was held by NLG attorneys on Tuesday, January 22, 2013. Of cases reviewed that evening, there were three cars which were currently impounded. The following afternoon an NLG attorney, Gilbert Saucedo, attempted to contact the issuing agency (Sheriff's Department) to set up a hearing. Reviewing copies of the notices given to people who had their cars impounded, the attorney found information regarding the impound procedure on the back of the form in a passage in small print and in English. The only phone number listed was for the impound yard. The impound yard provided the contact number for the issuing agency. The attorney called the Sheriff's Department (2000 E. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles 90059) which handles citations issued in Long Beach. The attorney spoke to the Deputy who answered the phone, requesting a hearing for the three clients (above) he was

representing. The Deputy said that no hearings were arranged or handled over the phone. Despite the attorney's repeated requests for a specific appointment, the Deputy said that the way it was handled in that Sheriff's Department was for him to just show up. The NLG attorney set up a appointment for clients to meet him at the Sheriff's Department the following week on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM. Arriving at the appointed hour: clients, witnesses, people with licenses who could drive the vehicles if released; and two attorneys with a volunteer assistant, all of whom had been at the Long Beach Clinic and had taken the client input interviews. The NLG attorney provided relevant information to the Deputies at the desk. After about one-half hour, Sheriff Watch Commanded Ibelle came to the desk. He explained: his schedule would not allow him to hold a hearing, in that he was in the midst of other duties; he wanted to hear the Deputy's side of the story (Deputy X who issued all three citations); and, it would have been best for the NLG to have set up an appointment before just showing up. The attorney said despite his repeated requests for an appointment the Deputy answering the phone would not set up an appointment. Watch Commander Ibelle said he was sorry for any inconvenience. He could make a decision now but you wouldn't like that decision. The Hearing appointment was set up for the following Monday, February 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM. On the day of the Hearings all arrived at the appointed hour: clients, witnesses, people with licenses who could drive the vehicles if released; and the NLG attorney with a volunteer assistant, both of whom had been at the Long Beach Clinic and had taken the client interviews. After about 15 minutes Watch Commander Ibelle arrived at the counter. Three clients were seen in the following order: Ms. G; Ms. A; and Ms. P. The time between each of these Hearings was about one-half hour. While seated in the shared office which served as a room for the Hearing, the NLG attorney asked to record the hearing Denied. The NLG attorney asked to question Deputy X Denied. The attorney noted that the initial hearing was postponed so that Deputy X would be available. So I could speak to him, if I needed, the Watch Commander replied. When the attorney raised the issue of racial profiling during the traffic stops, the Watch Commander stated that the Hearings had a very limited scope. Racial profiling and probable cause for the traffic stops would not be addressed. Ms. G Stated reason for stop: Was child's car seat properly secured? The NLG attorney said the reason for the stop was pretextual. He maintained that the child was properly secured and that at the scene Deputy X did not even check the car seat. Watch Commander Ibelle also noted that the statute - 10 days from the date of the impound to file a hearing request - had expired. The attorney said Deputy X had not given proper notice of the hearing request. The statute had run before the Lawyers Guild Long Beach Impound Clinic. It was only at the Clinic that Ms. G found outthat she had the right to an impound hearing. Watch Commander Ibelle said that there were no affirmative duties

required beyond the notice and ruled that the request for release of the car and waiver of fees Denied. Ms. A - Stated reason for stop: Object on rear view mirror. The NLG attorney said the stop was not called for; objects such as air fresheners are often placed on rear view mirrors and drivers are not given citations. The attorney questioned the citation stating that it was only a floral necklace air freshener. The attorney also stated that the Community Caretaking Doctrine applied in this case so the car should not have been towed. The attorney said Deputy X should have released the vehicle to Ms. A's mother - the registered owner and a licensed driver. She arrived within minutes of receiving her daughter's call. The Watch Commander said he would not go back and forth on matters of law; Deputy X was correct to get a car driven by an unlicensed driver off the road. Request for release of the car and waiver of fees Denied. Ms. P - Stated reason for stop: Problems with taillights. The NLG attorney asked for clarification from Deputy X about what was wrong with the taillights. Watch Commander Ibelle said that Deputy X issues many citations, and could not be expected to give a detailed description of each problem. The Watch Commander went on to explain that taillights must meet certain specifications and would not be allowed unless they were given an official exception to those specifications. The attorney again raised the Community Caretaking Doctrine, and asked whether Watch Commander was saying that decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court did not apply to the Sheriff's Department. Watch Commander Ibelle reiterated his position. Request for release of the car and waiver of fees Denied.