California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Adams, 2d Crim. No. B259870 (Cal. App. 2016):
8. It is doubtful that section 14602.6 provided authority for the impound here, as the People claim. It provides in relevant part that "[w]henever a peace officer determines that a person was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended . . . , the peace officer may either immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of that vehicle 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 . . . ." ( 14602.6, subd. (a)(1).) A California appellate court has interpreted this language to mean the arrest, if required, must occur before the vehicle search. (Thompson v. City of Petaluma (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 101, 110 [section 14602.6 does not permit officers to "impound a vehicle when the driver has not been arrested and the vehicle has not been involved in an accident"].) Regardless, it would be surprising if the statute authorized an officer to "arrest" a suspectindeed, required arrest as a condition of the impound in most caseswithout probable cause that the suspect had committed some crime. We need not resolve this issue of state law.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.