Under the new law, the officer should attempt "to contact the owner of the vehicle and may release the vehicle... if the owner is readily available... was not in the vehicle at the time of the stop and arrest, and... has not received a prior release." So if you lend your car to a friend who gets caught driving with a suspended license, the officer should call you before calling the tow company.
The amendment is a step in the right direction for the infamous impound law, which is copied in Seattle's municipal code. The ACLU and the Defender Association have fought against the city law since its inception in January 1999 under former City Attorney Mark Sidran, arguing that it's unfair and unnecessary to tow the car on the spot when alternatives exist. They also argue that the law disproportionately hits low-income drivers: Many suspended licenses stem from an inability to pay fines, and when the car is impounded and held for weeks, it racks up hundreds of dollars of storage fees that plenty of owners can't afford to pay. In the end, low-income drivers tend to lose their cars entirely. While the new state law won't completely change the impound situation, it will help a lot of vehicle owners keep their cars.
Representative Bush has introduced a similar bill three times already, and it passed the house in 2001 (the state senate didn't have time to consider it). This year, however, the bill--thanks to a December 12, 2002, ruling--has the Washington State Supreme Court on its side. After all, the Olympia bill would bring the state's impound law more in line with the court's recent ruling, which said law enforcement officers must consider reasonable alternatives to impounding the car on the spot ["Another One Bites the Dust," Amy Jenniges, Dec 19].
But unfortunately, some City of Seattle departments are still in lockstep with Sidran-era "mandatory impound" rules. Several departments have come out against the bill. At least three departments have analyzed the bill for the city; two opposed it. If the mayor and city council take those two departments' advice, Seattle's Olympia lobbyist will oppose it.
Bob Scales, a senior policy analyst in Seattle's Office of Policy and Management, submitted a statement regarding "potential impacts" of the bill on Seattle's current impound program. He paints a grim picture of Seattle under the new law: "This bill would effectively gut the current impound law by making it impractical to enforce and we would lose all of the public safety gains attained." Officers may choose not to impound cars simply to avoid the hassle of finding the owner.
Furthermore, "If this bill passed, rather than impounding cars, the City would have to return to jailing first-time offenders." (Jailing offenders, however, would not be the only alternative to impounding cars. Relicensing programs or fines are two less costly solutions.)
Scales wasn't the only city official to weigh in on the Olympia bill. The police department and the city attorney's office also submitted analyses of the potential impacts on Seattle, though the city attorney's office did not take a stance. Leo Poort, police legal advisor, recently issued an SPD policy educating officers about alternatives to impoundment. (Regardless of the Olympia bill's fate, the city is already obligated to follow the supreme court ruling, which mandates discretion.) He then opposed the bill because, "Our policy takes care of what we need to take care of."
But once again, the ACLU of Washington and the Defender Association are fighting the city, and taking issue with the city departments' analyses of the bill. Lisa Daugaard at the Defender Association takes issue with the premise that the city would have to be forced to jail first-time offenders--she notes that the consequence for getting caught would be up to a judge. "It would be very surprising if [jailing] was the judicial practice."
