Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Cc 081213 Dept 14 Lapp l

Cc 081213 Dept 14 Lapp l

Cc 081213 Dept 14 Lapp l

Page 1: Cc 081213 Dept 14 Lapp l

Category:General

Number of Pages:38

Date Created:August 14, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:REPORTERS, CCROLA, COALITION, IMPOUND, officers, vehicle, honor, Special, angeles, order, ACLU, State, Supreme Court, court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

CASE NUMBER:  BC483052  CASE NAME:  LAPPL VS. CITY LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA  MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013  DEPARTMENT  HON. TERRY GREEN, JUDGE  
REPORTER:  ANITA ALDERSON, CSR NO. 11843  TIME:  A.M. SESSION  APPEARANCES:  (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)  THE COURT:  GOOD MORNING.  MR. LEVINE:  GOOD MORNING YOUR, HONOR, RICHARD  
LEVINE WITH SILVER, HADDEN, SILVER, WEXLER LEVINE, FOR  PLAINTIFF, LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE.  MR. ORFANEDES:  GOOD MORNING YOUR, HONOR, PAUL  ORFANEDES WITH JUDICIAL WATCH FOR PLAINTIFF HAROLD  STURGEON.  
MR. SATO:  GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, GERALD SATO,  DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE CITY LOS ANGELES, CHIEF  BECK AND THE MEMBERS THE BOARD POLICE COMMISSIONERS.  MR. KAUFMAN:  GOOD MORNING, YOUR, HONOR, MICHAEL  KAUFMAN, BEHALF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS, CHIRLA AND VOICE.  I'M HERE APPEARING WITH PETER BIBRING AND  LUCERO CHAVEZ.  THE COURT:  WELL, HAVE SEAT.  THE FIRST ITEM  BUSINESS HAVE COUPLE MEDIA REQUESTS.  KCAL  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966  WWW.CCROLA.COM  CBC ANYBODY OBJECT SIGNING THESE?  MR. LEVINE: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.  MR. KAUFMAN: NO, YOUR HONOR.  UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: SIR, I'M WITH KNBC WELL,  
AND PEOPLE ARE SCRAMBLING FAX YOU PAPERWORK. MAY  ALSO HAVE PERMISSION BRING OUR CAMERAS INTO THE COURT?  THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?  UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: NO, OBJECTION.  MR. SATO: NO, OBJECTION.  
THE COURT: YOU WANT MINUTE? THE ANSWER  YES. YOU WANT SOME TIME?  (BRIEF PAUSE PROCEEDING.)  
THE COURT: OKAY. I'VE READ ALL YOUR PAPERS.  NOW KNOW ALL EVER WANTED KNOW ABOUT IMPOUNDING  VEHICLES YOU HAVE LICENSE, WAS AFRAID ASK THE  PAST, BUT NOW KNOW. CAN WHIZ COCKTAIL  PARTIES ALONG WITH THE REST YOU ENTERTAINING THE GUESTS  
WITH THE INTRICACIES THE IMPOUND, PARDON ME,  REMOVAL/IMPOUND/FORFEITURE BECAUSE I'M TOLD THERE  DIFFERENCE.  OKAY. WHEN FIRST STARTED READING THIS WAS  WONDERING THIS WAS REAL CONTROVERSY WERE  
DEBATING HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE THE HEAD PIN.  OBVIOUSLY SPECIAL ORDER DIFFERENT THAN 14602. AND  ONE THE BRIEFS, THINK WAS PLAINTIFF STURGEON, SAID  THAT THERE HAD BEEN DRAMATIC DECREASE THE NUMBER  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  IMPOUNDS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD LICENSE DIDN'T  HAVE LICENSE. AND DIDN'T SEE THAT GOING CHALLENGED,  APPARENTLY THIS REAL ISSUE AFFECTING MANY THOUSANDS  PEOPLE ANNUAL BASIS. YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT THE WAY? THINK  YOUR PAPERS HAVE 26,000 13,000 SOMETHING LIKE THAT  NUMBER IMPOUNDS.  MR. LEVINE: YOUR, HONOR, THOSE WERE STATISTICS  THAT THE CITY PROVIDED US.  
MR. SATO: WAS REPORT MADE THE COMMISSION. DID REFLECT DOWNWARD TRENDS STARTING EVEN BEFORE SPECIAL  ORDER BUT THE NUMBERS THE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED ARE  CORRECT.  THE COURT: THANK YOU. THIS REAL LIFE  
PROBLEM, AND I'M GLAD THAT ALL YOU HAVE BRIEFED AND  BROUGHT FOR LEAST RESOLUTION HERE.  I'LL TAKE THE POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE MOTION  FIRST, AND WILL GRANT JUDICIAL NOTICE REQUESTED. THE  FIRST ISSUE WHICH THEY SPENT THE MOST TIME ON, MOVING PARTY  
SPENT THE MOST TIME ON, WAS WHETHER WAS PREEMPTED  VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21, I'M SORRY  (BRIEF INTERRUPTION WITH THE CLERK SIDEBAR.)  
THE COURT: OKAY, THERE CHANNEL HERE?  UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: CHANNEL 22, YES.  THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION THEM SETTING UP?  MR. LEVINE: NO.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  MR. SATO: NO, YOUR, HONOR.  THE COURT: YOU WANT MINUTE?  UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: YES, JUST ONE MINUTE.  
(BRIEF PAUSE PROCEEDINGS.)  THE COURT: THE POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE HAD  CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT EFFORT SPENT THE PREEMPTION UNDER  VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21. THE CITY DID NOT DEVELOP MUCH  
TIME THIS ALTHOUGH THE INTERVENORS DID.  AND VEHICLE CODE SECTION RATHER EXPLICIT.  SAYS THAT EXCEPT OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THE  PROVISION THIS CODE ARE APPLICABLE AND UNIFORM  THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND ALL COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES  
THEREIN AND LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL NOT ENACT ENFORCE  ANY ORDINANCE RESOLUTION THE MATTERS COVERED THIS  CODE. INCLUDING ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS THAT ESTABLISH  REGULATION PROCEDURES FOR ACCESS, FINE, PENALTY  ASSESSMENT FEE FOR VIOLATION MATTERS COVERED, THAT THE KEY PHRASE, THIS CODE UNLESS EXPRESSLY  AUTHORIZED.  THAT OUR STARTING POINT BECAUSE ALL KNOW THIS  STATE LAW HAS SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY AND FACT THERE  ARE CASES, THINK WAS HAVE THE CITE HERE SOMEPLACE NOTES ZACK VERSUS -ZACK VERSUS CITY SAUSALITO,  2008, 165 CAL.APP. 4TH 1163, ANOTHER MATTER, READ THE  LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU'S REPORT. THEY ALSO TALKED  ABOUT THE SUPREMACY THE STATE VEHICLE CODE SECTION, HOW  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAN'T ESTABLISH THINGS THAT ARE MATTERS  COVERED THE VEHICLE CODE. THERE WAS CASE CITED,  O'CONNELL VERSUS CITY STOCKTON -THAT WAS FORFEITURE  CASE, PROSTITUTION FORFEITURE CASE, BUT STILL THE BROAD  
PRINCIPLES WERE ANNOUNCED ABOUT HOW STOCKTON THAT CASE  COULDN'T HAVE STATUTE REGULATION ORDINANCE  THAT DIFFERED FROM THE FORFEITURE STATUTES FOR THE STATE  THAT CAL.4TH 1061. LOOK THROUGH THIS, AND SAID, FIRST  
REACTION WAS ARE REALLY ARGUING OVER SOMETHING THAT  IMPORTANT. DOES THIS MAKE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE DON'T  KNOW WHETHER JUST FROM READING THE STATUTES WHETHER NOT  THEY CONFLICT WHETHER NOT THEY MODIFY WHAT SORT  REAL WORLD EFFECT THEY HAVE.  
WHEN READ THE STURGEON BRIEF, OBVIOUSLY HAS  REAL WORLD EFFECT AND LEAST SHOWS CONSIDERABLE  DECREASE THE IMPOUNDS. OBVIOUSLY THIS HAVING  REAL WORLD EFFECT. THINK WE'RE KIDDING OURSELVES  SAY THAT THE SPECIAL ORDER DOES NOT HAVE EFFECT JUST  
COMPLEMENTS, DOESN'T CONTRADICT, DOESN'T MODIFY 14602  BECAUSE APPARENTLY DOES. APPARENTLY THE REAL WORLD DOES.  NOW ALSO WHEN YOU READ IT, DOES. BREAKS OFF LICENSE FROM REVOKE LICENSE, SUSPENDED LICENSE,  
TREATS THEM NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT UNDER THE OTHER CODE  SECTION 22651 SOMETHING -YOU NEED THAT -WHICH READ  AND TEND AGREE WITH THE D.A.'S OFFICE. DON'T BELIEVE THAT IMPOUND STATUTE.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  SAYS ITS FACE THAT COMMUNITY CARETAKING STATUTE  AND DEALS WITH REMOVAL CARS AND, FACT, EXPRESSLY  IMPLIES WHEN THERE NOT IMPOUND. THERE OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENCE. THIS DIFFERENCE MEANINGFUL WHEN YOU  
READ IT. IT'S BEEN WELL ARGUED ABOUT WHAT COVERS, HOW CHANGES.  THE STURGEON BRIEF, AGAIN, WAS VERY INSTRUCTIVE  GIVING HYPOTHETICALS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER VARIOUS  SCENARIOS. HOW THE 1462 HANDLES THE SITUATION. HOW  
SPECIAL ORDER HANDLES THE SITUATION, AND IT'S NOTICEABLY  DIFFERENT. THIS REGULATION QUOTE MATTER  COVERED CLOSED QUOTE THE VEHICLE CODE THAT DOES  CONTRADICT MODIFY THE EXISTING STATE LAW.  AND WAS INTERESTED, READ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  
OPINION, READ THE D.A. OPINION, AND THEY BOTH WERE VERY  WELL DONE WHICH NOT SURPRISING. ALTHOUGH TEND  AGREE WITH THE D.A. OPINION, THERE MEANINGFUL  DIFFERENCE LEAST CRIMINAL LAW BETWEEN REMOVING  VEHICLE AND IMPOUNDING VEHICLE. YOU WANT, YOU  
FIND EVIDENCE THE VEHICLE AND YOU WANT USE  TRIAL AND THERE SUBSEQUENT MOTION SUPPRESS, THERE MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE AND THOSE CASES WERE CITED  THE D.A.'S OFFICE.  THEN THEY CAME WITH, AND ALSO READ WITH GREAT  
INTEREST, THE DECLARATIONS SOME L.A.P.D. PEOPLE,  HIGH-RANKING L.A.P.D. PEOPLE, THINK ONE WAS MOORE AND  READ COUPLE. AND THEY WERE SAYING, LOOK, RECOGNIZED HAD PROBLEM. TRIED SOLVE THIS PROBLEM GIVING  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  GUIDANCE OUR OFFICERS THE FIELD. AND THIS WAS  RESULT TRYING GET SOME SORT UNIFORM POLICY THE  CITY LOS ANGELES WOULDN'T HAVE UNEQUAL  APPLICATION. THEIR CONCERN WAS 14602 THUS DISCRETION WITH  
THE OFFICER -MAY IMPOUND. AND THE OFFICER DECIDES  IMPOUND, HAVE THIS MANDATORY 30-DAY IMPOUND PERIOD, BUT  THERE ARE SOME SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS THAT TALK ABOUT, WELL,  THERE APPEAL PROCESS, WHATEVER.  BUT DECIDED THAT THE MAY WAS TOO VAGUE, AND  
WANTED HAVE SOME GUIDELINES WHICH ALL VERY  UNDERSTANDABLE AND VERY LAUDABLE, AND I'M NOT IMPUGNING  ALL THE MOTIVES THE L.A.P.D. DOING THIS. IT'S WHAT  YOU EXPECT FROM PEOPLE WHO RUN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS  TRY AND GIVE GUIDANCE THEIR PEOPLE. BUT THIS SPECIAL  
ORDER MUCH MORE THAN JUST GUIDANCE. IT'S MUCH MORE  THAN JUST TRAINING. ACTUALLY CHANGES. CHANGES THE  LAW. CHANGES THE OUTCOME. AND FOR THAT MATTER, CAN'T  JUST SAY THIS GUIDANCE TRAINING AND THEREFORE IT'S  NOT ORDINANCE REGULATION BECAUSE THE D.A. POINTED  
OUT THAT JUST SEMANTICS. THIS SORT GAME  CHANGER. IT'S, BELIEVE FROM WHAT I'VE READ, THAT  THE VEHICLE CODE DOES PREEMPT SPECIAL ORDER HAPPY HEAR ARGUMENT FROM YOU, AND HAVE READ YOUR BRIEFS THAT  ARE VERY INTERESTING. THEY TOOK GOOD PART FRIDAY  
AND LARGE CHUNK SUNDAY, BUT, NO, WAS VERY  INTERESTING READING. LOOK FORWARD HEARING YOUR ORAL  ARGUMENTS THIS. HAVE READ THE MATERIAL YOU GAVE ME. HAVE READ  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THE DECLARATIONS. RULED THE OBJECTIONS. MA'AM CLERK, YOU HAVE THOSE?  THE CLERK: THEY WERE NOT SENT DOWN THIS MORNING.  THE COURT: THE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RULED ON.  
THERE WERE SOME OTHER ISSUES HERE THAT WERE HOPPING AROUND  THAT SAW. WANTED DISCUSS THOSE AND THEN HEAR YOUR  THOUGHTS THEM. THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY  OFFICER IMPOUND VEHICLE UNDER SECTION 14602  INTERCHANGEABLE WITH DIVISIONS 22651 (E). WELL, NO,  
THEY ARE DIFFERENT. BELIEVE THERE MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN  REMOVAL VEHICLE FOR CARETAKING PURPOSES AND IMPOUNDING VEHICLE. SAID, THERE DIFFERENCE. BELIEVE  THERE DIFFERENCE CRIMINAL LAW FOR SEARCH AND  
SEIZURE PURPOSES, BUT THESE HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.  NOW UNDERSTAND THAT 22651 DOES OVERLAP CITING  12500 AND 14601 AND OTHER STATUTES. AND GIVES THE  OFFICER ANOTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING VEHICLE OFF THE  ROAD, BUT DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE THE SAME. NOW THERE WAS CASE CITED, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ARGUED VERY VIGOROUSLY,  THE CASE, THE CHP CASE, HAVE HERE, ARGUED THAT THIS  CASE HELD THE PROPOSITION THAT THEY WERE THE SAME  CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, 162 CAL. 4TH 1144,  BUT THAT SURE NOT HOW READ THIS CASE.  
THIS CASE HAD NOTHING WITH 22651. IT'S  INTERESTING CASE, YOU'VE ALL READ IT. BUT THE CHP PULLED  THE PERSON OVER FOR DRUNK DRIVING AND RATHER THAN -HE  ALSO HAD SUSPENDED LICENSE. RATHER THAN USING 14602  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  USED THE 22651, CONSEQUENCE THE CAR WAS RELEASED FEW  HOURS LATER AND SADLY WAS USED THAT DAY -WAS  FATAL AUTO ACCIDENT. AND THE DECEDENTS, HIS NEXT KIN,  SUED THE CHP SAYING WAS VIOLATION MANDATORY DUTY.  
THE COURT SAID BECAUSE 14602 SAYS "MAY" AND THINK THE  COURT RIGHT. HAD NOTHING WITH 22651; WASN'T  EVEN CITED THE OPINION. JUST SAID THERE WAS LINE  THAT SAID THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE WOULD STORED RATHER  THAN IMPOUNDED RELEASED PURSUANT 22651 SUBDIVISION  
AND THEN CITES FOOTNOTE. OTHERWISE, THE CASE  NOT CITEABLE FOR ANY PROPOSITION THAT THESE WERE SOMEHOW  COEXTENSIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT -ON ITS FACE THEY ARE  NOT. ALSO NOTE THE ARGUMENT THAT 14602 VIOLATES THE  
FOURTH AMENDMENT. HAD SOME CASES CITED, NINTH CIRCUIT  CASE, JUDGE HENDERSON WROTE OPINION. READ THAT AND  AGAIN DON'T SEE WHERE THERE FOURTH AMENDMENT  COMMUNITY CARETAKING ELEMENT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THAT CASE, READ IT, THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE  
FROM MEXICO ONE WAS NAMED RUIZ THINK, FORGET THE NAME.  RUIZ PARKED HIS TRUCK CAR WHATEVER WAY  THAT OBSCURED LICENSE TAB. AND THE OFFICER ARRESTED HIM, WAS NOT CLEAR FOR WHAT. AND SAID, RUIZ SAID, HAVE LICENSE; HAVE MEXICAN LICENSE, BUT WAS ARRESTED  
UNDER THE NEVER BEEN ISSUED LICENSE SECTION AND THE  COURT -THERE WAS SUBSEQUENT CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AND  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POPPED  UNDER THE NEVER HAD LICENSE SECTION BECAUSE HAD  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  LICENSE MEXICO.  BUT DIDN'T READ THAT READING SOME KIND  FOURTH AMENDMENT LIMITATION HERE, AND DON'T THINK THE  14602 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WRITTEN. IDENTIFIES  
LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE. THOSE FINDINGS ARE 14607.4  MAYBE. WAS GETTING LATE LAST NIGHT, RAN OUT  COFFEE, AND THAT SET FORTH LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE. DIDN'T REALIZE THAT UNLICENSED DRIVERS AND  DRIVERS THAT NEVER HAD LICENSE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR  
DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT AUTO ACCIDENTS. JUST DIDN'T  KNOW THAT AND THOSE WERE THE FINDINGS THE LEGISLATURE  AND NOBODY SEEMS CHALLENGE THAT. THIS STATUTE THAT  DIRECTS ATTENTION THAT. SAYS, RECOGNIZE THIS  PROBLEM AND FOR THE PROTECTION ALL RESIDENTS  
CALIFORNIA, ARE GOING INCREASE THE POWERS THE  POLICE IMPOUND VEHICLES THOSE SITUATIONS AND THE  PURPOSE THE IMPOUND WAS DENY ACCESS THE NEVER BEEN  LICENSED PERSON REVOKED LICENSE PERSON THEY WOULDN'T  HAVE THE CAR DRIVE FOR DAYS AND, THEREFORE, LESS  
APT INVOLVED ACCIDENT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE AND  HURT SOMEBODY ELSE.  THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT; DON'T SEE THAT  VIOLATING THAT. CAN'T THINK ANY LESS ONEROUS  ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE MEANINGFUL. DON'T THINK  
VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WRITTEN THAT WAS ONE  THE ARGUMENTS THAT WAS RAISED. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE.  THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT. WOULD, SUMMARY, WOULD GRANT THE MOTIONS  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FROM THE L.A. POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE  AND FROM MR. STURGEON AND DENY THE OTHERS. WILL SAY SOMETHING ELSE. THE INTERVENORS AND  OTHERS MADE ARGUMENTS, THE ACLU MADE ARGUMENTS, THAT WERE  
MORE THE LINE POLICY ARGUMENTS. AND, YOU KNOW,  MAY GOOD POLICY. I'M NOT HERE DISCUSS WHETHER  POLICY GOOD POLICY BAD POLICY. DON'T  PUBLIC POLICY HERE THE SUPERIOR COURT. JUST EXAM  LAWS AND DECIDE DISPUTES.  
WHEN WAS READING IT, SAID THAT MAKES SENSE,  CAN SEE YOUR POINT VIEW. BUT ISN'T THAT WHY HAVE  LEGISLATURE. ISN'T THAT WHY ELECT REPRESENTATIVES,  ASSEMBLYMEN ASSEMBLY PERSONS SENATORS AND ELECT  GOVERNOR THAT WHY THEY ARE THERE. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR  
PITCH THESE PEOPLE. DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE AND  THE GOVERNOR ARE NECESSARILY HOSTILE YOUR POSITION INITIO. MAYBE YOU CAN CARRY THE DAY PUBLIC DEBATE,  BUT DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S PLACE JUDGE MAKE  
THOSE, WELL, KNOW, IT'S NOT PLACE JUDGE  MAKE THOSE POLICY DETERMINATIONS. WHO WANTS FIRST. TELL WHERE I'M WRONG.  CITY, ENJOYED YOUR WORK. ENJOYED YOUR PAPERS.  ALWAYS HATED WHEN WAS TRIAL, AND THE JURY CAME BACK  
AGAINST AND THE JURY SAID, THOUGHT YOU WERE REALLY  GREAT, COURSE, THEY VOTED FOR THE OPPONENT.  MR. SATO: I'VE HEARD THAT MORE THAN FEW TIMES  TOO, YOUR, HONOR.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THE COURT: HEARD MORE THAN FAIR SHARE  THINK.  MR. SATO: YOUR, HONOR, THE CITY DOES APPRECIATE  THE TIME THE COURT HAS OBVIOUSLY DEVOTED THIS CASE, BUT  
HERE CHANCE PERSUADE YOU OTHERWISE.  THE CITY WOULD PHRASE THE ISSUE LITTLE MORE  NARROWLY THAN THINK THE COURT HAS. THE FACE THE  SPECIAL ORDER HAS ITS STATED PURPOSE GUIDELINES  FOR APPLICATION THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE. AND  
THAT DOCTRINE DOESN'T HAVE ITS SOURCE THE VEHICLE CODE.  THE SOURCE THAT DOCTRINE CASE LAW INTERPRETING THE  FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT: KNOW.  MR. SATO: THINK PHRASING THE PREEMPTION  
ISSUE, SHOULD PHRASED, THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE  VEHICLE CODE THAT PROHIBITS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FROM  ISSUING GUIDELINES AND EVEN DISCIPLINARY RULES WHETHER  THEY ARE WRITING LIKE SPECIAL ORDER VERBALLY LIKE ROLL CALL TRAINING THAT PROHIBITS THAT AGENCY FROM  
CREATING THOSE GUIDELINES.  THE COURT: BUT WAIT, PHRASED THE ANSWER  NOTHING, NOTHING. FACT EXPECT L.A.P.D. HAVE ROLL  CALL HAVE GUIDELINES ABOUT HOW EXERCISE ITS POWER.  WAS D.A. FOR MANY YEARS. HAD THAT THE D.A.'S  
OFFICE. HAD GUIDELINES ABOUT HOW OUR JOB. BUT  APPARENTLY, CAN READ THIS AND CAN SEE HOW THE STATUTES  AND THE ORDER ARE DIFFERENT. APPARENTLY THIS REAL  WORLD DIFFERENCE. IT'S REAL WORLD THING.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM IT'S REAL WORLD THING, HAVE CONCLUDE THIS MORE THAN JUST GUIDANCE FOR TRAINING, BUT THIS  ACTUALLY HAS REAL WORLD EFFECT, WHERE WRONG THAT?  MR. SATO: WELL, KNOW THOSE REPORTS THAT ARE EVIDENCE, CHIEF BECK ATTRIBUTED SOME BETTER PART THE DECLINE ISSUING SPECIAL ORDER BUT THINK  IT'S FAIR SAY THAT THE DOWNWARD TREND THAT YOU SEE EVEN  FROM BEFORE SPECIAL ORDER REFLECTS THE GROWING CASE LAW WHICH THE DIFFERENT COURTS, STATE AND FEDERAL, HAVE  
APPLIED THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE DECISIONS  IMPOUND VEHICLES.  THE COURT: I'M SORRY, HATE INTERRUPT. SAY WANT HEAR FROM YOU THEN INTERRUPT YOU.  WHY NOT TAKE THIS THE LEGISLATURE? WHY NOT SAY, THINK THE BETTER PUBLIC POLICY MODIFY VEHICLE CODE  21, 14602, AND THE OTHER SECTIONS, AND ACTUALLY MAKE THIS  PART THE LAW. THAT THE FRUSTRATION HAD READING  THIS. YOU ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT ARE -YOU'RE SAYING OTHERS ARE SAYING THIS DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVELY  
AFFECTS GIVEN PORTION OUR COMMUNITY AND THEREFORE  OUGHT MODIFY CERTAIN WAY, ISN'T THAT LEGISLATIVE  DETERMINATION?  MR. SATO: LET TRY RESPOND THIS WAY. CITED CASE LAW THAT SAYS THAT THE STATUTORY  
AUTHORITY IMPOUND UNDER 14602.6 A-1 DOES NOT -STILL  THE IMPOUND STILL HAS COMPLY WITH THE COMMUNITY  CARETAKING DOCTRINE COMPLIES WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THESE CASES POSIT POTENTIAL SITUATIONS WHERE FOLLOWING  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  14602.6 A-1 THE LETTER STILL MIGHT NOT COMPLY WITH THE  COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE. CITED TWO CASES, HAVE FORGOTTEN NOW WHICH  THE COURT: CITY SAN MATEO 
MR. SATO: PEOPLE VERSUS TORRES AND PEOPLE VERSUS  WILLIAMS AND THOSE BOTH ADDRESS THE ISSUE HOW STATUTORY,  HERE STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER 14602.61 AND ANOTHER CASE  UNDER DIFFERENT PART 22651, WAS NOT AUTOMATIC.  THERE STILL HAD COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY  
CARETAKING DOCTRINE AND ONE CASE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T  THAT COMPLIANCE EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN IMPOUND  SEARCH, INVENTORY SEARCH, EXCUSE ME, AFTER THE IMPOUND  WAS EXCLUDED TRIAL. THE TWO ARE NOT COEXTENSIVE AND THE COMMUNITY  
CARETAKING DOCTRINE THINK THE CASES HAVE POSITED THERE  MAY SITUATIONS WHERE TRUMPS THE VEHICLE CODE.  AND THERE SUGGESTION AND NOTHING THE  EVIDENCE THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYING  THAT SPECIAL ORDER WAS MEANT APPLY THE COMMUNITY  
CARETAKING DOCTRINE THAT SOMEHOW SHAM WAS MEANT ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING ELSE  THE COURT: APPLAUD THE L.A.P.D. FOR DOING  THEY ARE KNOWN FOR EXCELLENT TRAINING AND GUIDANCE THEIR  OFFICERS THAT NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING THIS  
MORE THAN JUST TRAINING AND GUIDANCE.  MR. SATO: THINK MAY MORE INTO THE EXTENT, GUESS, COURSE DON'T AGREE REQUIRES THINGS  DIFFERENT FROM THE VEHICLE CODE, BUT THE EXTENT DOES,  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM THINK THE QUESTION IS, THERE ANYTHING SPECIAL  ORDER THAT REALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY  CARETAKING DOCTRINE BOTH THE IMPOUND DECISION ITSELF THE DISPOSITION THE VEHICLE ONCE ACTUALLY  
IMPOUNDED.  THERE ISN'T MATERIAL REGARDING WHAT HAPPENS AFTER  CAR STORED AND SPECIAL ORDER LESS CLEAR. ALTHOUGH THINK THAT REFLECTS JUST THE FACT THAT THE CASE LAW  INVOLVING THAT PART THE IMPOUND PROCESS LESS  
DEVELOPED THAN WHAT THINK UNIFORM BODY CASE LAW  SAYING THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE APPLIES EVERY  WARRANTLESS SEIZURE VEHICLE.  AND THE OTHER THING IS, REGARDING THE 30-DAY  MANDATORY RULE.  
THE COURT: RIGHT.  MR. SATO: WHEN YOU LOOK THE DIFFERENT  EXCEPTIONS THAT FOLLOW THAT ARE ALSO 14602.6 A-2 AND  THEN THE REST THAT STATUTE YOU HAVE EXCEPTIONS THAT  PRACTICALLY SWALLOW THE RULE. AND YOU HAD SUMMARIZE  
ALL THAT BASICALLY WHAT SAYS, WELL, THERE  PERSON WHO CAN LAWFULLY TAKE POSSESSION THE VEHICLE AND  THERE INSURANCE, AND CAN TAKEN WAY THAT  NOT LAWFUL, FOR EXAMPLE JUST GIVING THE VEHICLE BACK  SOME UNLICENSED PERSON, WELL, POSSESSION HAS  
RESTORED, AND DON'T THINK THERE ANYTHING SPECIAL  ORDER THAT INCONSISTENT WITH THAT.  THE COURT: STARTS OFF WITH THE PRESUMPTION, FIRST ALL, TAKES THE UNLICENSED SITUATION, BREAKS INTO  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  TWO, TREATS THEM DIFFERENTLY AND HAS THE PRESUMPTION.  YOU READ IT, DOESN'T SAY PRESUMPTION, BUT SAYS,  STARTS OFF WITH SHALL NOT IMPOUND. STARTS OFF WITH  SHIFTING THE BURDEN.  SHIFTING THE GAME WHICH, SAID, SHOULDN'T SURPRISED THERE DECREASE THE NUMBER IMPOUNDS. DOESN'T SAY THAT, BUT DOES SAY SHALL  NOT IMPOUND SHALL RELEASE, THINK IT'S SHALL RELEASE  BUT IT'S  MR. SATO:  I'M SORRY.  
THE COURT:  NO, PLEASE.  MR. SATO: DON'T WANT INTERRUPT.  THE COURT:  NO, I'M THE ONE. ASKED FOR YOUR  INPUT AND THEN INTERRUPT YOU.  MR. SATO: WOULD WEARY ABOUT BASING STATUTORY  
INTERPRETATION THE STATISTICS BECAUSE THE SUGGESTION  THAT SAY FOR SOME REASON THE NUMBER ACTUAL DECISIONS  IMPOUND THE VEHICLE INCREASED. DON'T THINK THAT WOULD  HAVE ANY BEARING HOW THE COURT SHOULD INTERPRET WHETHER  THERE ACTUAL CONFLICT WHETHER THERE  
APPLICATION THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE.  THE COURT:  NO, I'M JUST CITING THIS BEING  REAL WORLD ISSUE AND HAVING REAL WORLD IMPACT THAT WHY  WE'RE HERE.  MR. SATO: DID WANT POINT OUT THAT THOSE  
STATISTICS REFLECT THE DECISION IMPOUND ALL.  THEY  DON'T APPLY WHAT HAPPENS THE VEHICLE ONCE  IMPOUNDED. DOESN'T HAVE WITH THE 30-DAY  BUSINESS. KNOW THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE WAS GOING  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966  WWW.CCROLA.COM  ADD.  THE COURT: YOU THINK ABOUT RAISE YOUR HAND.  YES, SIR.  MR. KAUFMAN: JUST FOLLOW COUPLE  
POINTS THE CITY ATTORNEY MADE. THINK YOUR HONOR ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, SPECIAL  ORDER HAS REAL WORLD EFFECTS THE SAME WAY THAT ROLL  CALL TRAINING AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONS AND POLICIES THAT  L.A.P.D. PUTS OUT, HAS REAL WORLD EFFECTS OFFICERS'  
CONDUCT THE FIELD.  THE QUESTION THOUGH WHETHER THOSE REAL WORLD  EFFECTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS THE VEHICLE  CODE. THIS PREEMPTION ISSUE TERMS WHETHER THERE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATUTES PASSED THE STATE LEVEL  
AND SPECIAL ORDER ALL THE PARTIES ARE AGREEMENT THAT  THE VEHICLE CODE PROVISIONS ISSUE HERE, 22651 AND  14602.6 ARE DISCRETIONARY. THEY NEVER MANDATE IMPOUND SEIZURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. ALL THE L.A.P.D.  HAS DONE TAKEN THAT DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AND PROVIDED  
INSTRUCTIONS THEIR OFFICERS WHEN THEY SHOULD EMPLOY  EITHER PROVISION ACCORDING UNIFORM STANDARDS. THEY ARE  OPERATING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DISCRETION GIVEN UNDER THE  VEHICLE CODE.  PLAINTIFF STURGEON THEMSELVES ADMIT THAT EVERY  
SINGLE ACTION CALLED FOR SPECIAL ORDER COULD  UNDERTAKEN INDIVIDUAL OFFICER HIS HER OWN  INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THERE NOTHING THE POLICY ITSELF  THE ACTIONS CALLS FOR THAT CONFLICT. GIVEN THAT  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THE DEPARTMENT TRYING STANDARDIZE THE OFFICERS'  CONDUCT ACROSS 10,000 UNIFORMED OFFICERS PROVIDE  CONSISTENCY ENSURE ALL THE CONCERNS THAT ASSISTANT CHIEF  MOORE MENTIONED HIS DECLARATION ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND  
CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC, VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS AND  FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS SIMPLY WAY FOR THE  DEPARTMENT STANDARDIZE THAT DISCRETION ACCORDING  DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.  THE COURT: THEY ARE THE SAME, THEN WHY NOT JUST  
LIVE WITH THE VEHICLE CODE SECTIONS AND NOT HAVE THE -NOT  HAVE SPECIAL ORDER THAT ARGUMENT ALSO DID NOT  UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE TRYING SHOW THIS DOESN'T  CONTRADICT, MODIFY CHANGE THE STATE LAW, THEN WHY HAVE  IT? WHY NOT JUST STICK WITH THE STATE LAW THEN?  
MR. KAUFMAN: BECAUSE THE STATE LAW, THE DISCRETION  GIVEN UNDER 14602 EXTREMELY BROAD THE DISCRETION  GIVEN 2261. THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPERIENCE PRIOR  SPECIAL ORDER WAS THAT WHEN THEY HAD INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS  MAKING DECISIONS THEIR OWN, THERE WAS INCONSISTENT  
PRACTICES ACROSS DIFFERENT PRECINCTS. YOU HAD SOME  PRECINCTS IMPOUNDING CARS AUTOMATICALLY FOR DAYS EVERY  CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THEY PULLED OVER UNLICENSED DRIVER.  YOU HAD SOME DOING SOME MIX, BUT THERE WAS STANDARD  POLICY AND THAT PROBLEM FROM WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S  
PERSPECTIVE. THEY WANT HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY THEIR  PRACTICES.  THE CHOICE HERE NOT BETWEEN UNIFORMITY ACROSS  THE STATE AND SPECIAL ORDER THE CHOICE WHETHER YOU  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  HAVE ONE POLICY WITHIN L.A. YOU HAVE 10,000 POLICIES  WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFICER GOES OUT INTO THE FIELD AND  APPLIES THE VEHICLE CODE ACCORDING THEIR OWN PERSONAL  PREFERENCE.  
THE COURT: YOU ARE SACRAMENTO, ISN'T THE  ISSUE ARE GOING HAVE ONE POLICY THROUGHOUT THE STATE DIFFERENT POLICY LOS ANGELES, VENTURA, SAN DIEGO,  SAN BERNARDINO AND EVERY OTHER COUNTY CALIFORNIA.  MR. KAUFMAN: THAT ALREADY THE CASE, YOUR,  
HONOR, BECAUSE THE VEHICLE PROVISIONS PROVIDE SUCH BROAD  DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY YOU HAVE THAT. WITHOUT SPECIAL  ORDER YOU HAVE THAT DISCREPANCY HAPPENING BLOCK BLOCK  WITHIN YOUR CITY BECAUSE ONE OFFICER MAY IMPOUND CAR FOR DAYS AUTOMATICALLY AND ANOTHER ONE MAY CHOOSE NEVER  
IMPOUND THE CAR ALL FOR LICENSED DRIVING VIOLATION.  THE COURT: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN RATHER THAN BEING  PULLED OVER -THE QUESTION HAVE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN  MARCH 2012 BEFORE THIS WENT INTO EFFECT OPPOSED  MAY 2012. ANOTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN  
TODAY HAD THE SAME SITUATION RATHER THAN THE  CITY LOS ANGELES THEY DROVE THE COAST AND WERE  VENTURA. UNIFORMITY GOAL THEN SHOULDN'T UNIFORMITY  COME FROM THE STATE CALIFORNIA. ISN'T THAT WHY THEY SAY THE VEHICLE CODE THE ZACK CASE THAT THEY DON'T WANT  THE LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT ADD TO, VARY, MODIFY THE  STATE LAW. WHAT THEY WANT THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THE  STATE BASIS, NOT JUST PRECINCT BASIS, BUT THE STATE BASIS  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THEY WANT THE UNIFORMITY. AREN'T DEFEATING THAT  HAVING EACH THE 50-SOME COUNTIES CALIFORNIA, DON'T  KNOW HOW MANY CITIES THERE ARE CALIFORNIA, HAVING THEIR  OWN.  
MR. KAUFMAN: NOT ALL, YOUR HONOR. ALREADY  HAD THAT KIND INCONSISTENCY EXISTING BEFORE SPECIAL  ORDER WAS ADOPTED WITH DIFFERENT PRACTICES HAPPENING  WITHIN THE CITY LOS ANGELES ITSELF BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL  OFFICERS WHICH MAY DIFFER WHAT WAS HAPPENING SANTA  
BARBARA ANY OTHER CITY CALIFORNIA.  THIS LEAST ENSURES SOME UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE  CITY LOS ANGELES ITSELF. THE LEGISLATURE MADE ITS INTENT  CLEAR HERE PROVIDING THAT SECTION 14602  DISCRETIONARY. THEY WANTED CERTAIN ACTIONS TAKEN  
RULE, THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MANDATORY THEY DID  SECTION 14607.6 THE FORFEITURE PROVISION THAT YOUR, HONOR  ALLUDED EARLIER. THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IMPOUNDMENT MANDATORY.  THE LEGISLATURE HERE MADE DIFFERENT DISTINCTION  
WHEN CAME 14602.6. THEY SAID WE'RE GOING ALLOW  LAW ENFORCEMENT DEVELOP THEIR OWN POLICIES, THEIR OWN  INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES DEPENDING WHATEVER THEY THINK  APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR JURISDICTION AND THEIR COMMUNITIES  WHICH THEY WORK.  
THE COURT: WHY NOT TAKE THIS THE LEGISLATURE  AND SAY THROUGHOUT THE STATE CALIFORNIA, GOD KNOWS HOW  MANY CITIES HAVE THE STATE CALIFORNIA, EVERY ONE GOING HAVE THEIR OWN DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT HAVE  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  REAL WORLD EFFECTS. RATHER THAN DRIVING FROM DOWNTOWN LOS  ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO AND PASSING THROUGH HOW MANY  CITIES, EACH ONE HAS DIFFERENT RULE, WHY NOT TAKE THESE  ARGUMENTS SACRAMENTO AND SAY SPECIAL ORDER SUCH  
GREAT IDEA LET'S JUST MAKE PART THE VEHICLE CODE AND  NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM AND THEN WOULD PUBLIC DEBATE;  THEN WOULD HAVE PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT IT; LEGISLATORS  WOULD ARGUE IT; WOULD THE PRESS; THERE WOULD  EDITORIALS. GROUPS THAT ARE AFFECTED ONE WAY THE OTHER  
WOULD CHIME IN, AND COULD GET SOME SORT STATE POLICY  THAT WOULD UNIFORM. WOULDN'T HAVE THE PRECINCT  PRECINCT CITY CITY COUNTY COUNTY DIFFERENCE AND WOULD UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND WOULDN'T  HAVE THESE ISSUES.  
MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR, HONOR, THIS THE DECISION THE  LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY MADE MAKING SECTION  THE COURT: WHY NOT TAKE THIS THE LEGISLATURE  AND SAY, LOOK YOU HAVE HOLE THIS LAW. SAYS MAY AND  THAT TOO BROAD. WE'RE HAVING TOO MANY DIFFERENT  
DECISIONS BEING MADE THROUGHOUT THE STATE CALIFORNIA.  TAKE THIS SPECIAL ORDER THIS TEMPLATE  PROPOSAL, AND TAKE THE LEGISLATURE. BIG BELIEVER DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC DEBATE.  I'M RELUCTANT HAVE JUDGES, WHO FOR ALL INTENTS AND  
PURPOSES, ARE UNELECTED MAKING THESE DECISIONS.  MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR, HONOR, CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND  YOUR HONOR'S CONCERN THAT THIS SOME WAY POLICY  MAKING, BUT IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT THAN L.A.P.D.'S  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  APPROACH ITS INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDANCE ITS OFFICERS NUMEROUS AREAS THAT TOUCH THE VEHICLE CODE. HAVE  PROVIDED NUMBER EXAMPLES, OTHER L.A.P.D. POLICIES THAT  WOULD NECESSARILY INVALIDATED YOUR HONOR ACCEPTS  
PLAINTIFFS BROAD READING SECTION 21. AND HAVE  PROVIDED NUMBER OTHER JUST HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES  THINK THAT WOULD MAKE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.  LET'S SAY NEW YEAR'S EVE CHIEF BECK ISSUES  DIRECTIVE SAYING THEY WANT ALL ITS OFFICERS FOCUS,  
PRIORITIZE DRUNK DRIVING VIOLATIONS THE EXPENSE  OTHER VIOLATIONS. UNDER PLAINTIFFS VIEW SECTION THAT  DIRECTIVE WOULD UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT'S PUTTING  CONDITIONS. PRIORITIZATION DOESN'T EXIST THE VEHICLE  CODE ITSELF.  
ANOTHER EXAMPLE, YOUR, HONOR, SECTION 40303 THE  VEHICLE CODE PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT THE DISCRETION  EITHER CITE AND RELEASE DRIVER FOR CERTAIN ENUMERATED  OFFENSES EFFECT CUSTODIAL ARREST. PLAINTIFFS  VIEW SECTION 21, CHIEF BECK CAN'T ISSUE POLICY WHEN WANTS HIS OFFICERS MAKING CUSTODIAL ARRESTS FOR  CERTAIN AND ANY SORTS VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD FALL UNDER  4303.  THESE ARE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL POLICY-MAKING ROLES  THAT THE CHIEF FULFILLS THE EXECUTIVE THE L.A.P.D.  
AND YOUR HONOR ACCEPTS PLAINTIFFS VIEW SECTION 21,  WOULD STRIPPED OVER ANY ABILITY REGULATE, SUPERVISE,  INSTRUCT, DIRECT HIS OFFICERS' CONDUCT MATTERS COVERED THE VEHICLE CODE.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THIS BREATHTAKING BROAD VIEW SECTION 21.  REAL REVOLUTION HOW STRUCTURE LAW ENFORCEMENT  CALIFORNIA. YOU HAVE UNDER PLAINTIFFS VIEW SECTION ALL  THE AUTHORITY, ALL THE POWER UNDER THE VEHICLE CODE RESIDES THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS, THE LOWEST LEVEL INDIVIDUAL  OFFICERS, WHO CAN HAUL THEIR BOSSES INTO COURT ANY TIME  THEY DISAGREE WITH ANY INSTRUCTIONS THEIR BOSSES GIVE THEM  ABOUT HOW THEY WANT THEM IMPLEMENT THE DISCRETIONARY  PROVISIONS THE VEHICLE CODE.  
THE COURT: FROM THEIR POINT VIEW THEY ARE SWORN UPHOLD THE LAWS THE STATE CALIFORNIA AND THE LAW  SAYS ONE THING AND SPECIAL ORDER SAYS SOMETHING ELSE.  AND THAT PUTS THEM THIS QUANDARY ABOUT THEY VIOLATE  POTENTIALLY THE STATE LAW THEY VIOLATE THE ORDERS  
THE L.A.P.D. THEY SAY THAT SUBJECTS THEM CIVIL  LIABILITY. DON'T KNOW, THE CHP CASE CITED SAID  LEAST UNDER THOSE FACTS, BUT CAN SEE POTENTIALLY WHERE  THAT CONFLICT COULD COME UP.  BUT EVEN CONFLICT DOESN'T COME THEY ARE  
SWORN UPHOLD THE LAW THE STATE CALIFORNIA AND HERE  YOU CAN READ SPECIAL ORDER AND DIFFERENT AND HAS  REAL WORLD EFFECTS. WHAT THEY DO? WHAT YOU THEY  TELL THE OFFICER DO?  MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR, HONOR, LET'S SAY L.A.P.D.  
PASSED POLICY THAT SAID MANDATE YOU USE 14602 EVERY  CIRCUMSTANCE; THEY WANT 30-DAY IMPOUNDS RULE. THAT  POLICY ALSO WOULD UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT'S INSTRUCTING  THEIR OFFICERS HOW IMPLEMENT DISCRETION WITH 14602.  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THIS WORKS BOTH WAYS AND IT'S GOING ELIMINATE NOT ONLY  POLICIES SECTION 14602, BUT BROADLY ANY POLICIES UNDER  THE VEHICLE CODE THE L.A.P.D. CURRENTLY HAS. AND THIS  RULE WAS ADOPTED STATEWIDE WOULD ELIMINATE LAW  
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES' AUTHORITY ADOPT ANY POLICIES  WHATSOEVER THAT TOUCH THE VEHICLE CODE.  THE COURT: DON'T THINK IT'S THAT DRACONIAN.  L.A.P.D. FAMOUS FOR ITS EXCELLENT TRAINING SAID.  USED ACTUALLY CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION ONE POINT  
ONE PRIOR LIVES. L.A.P.D. TRENDSETTER WHEN  COMES OUTSTANDING EDUCATION AND TRAINING. DON'T SEE THAT DRACONIAN. CAN SEE THEM DRAFTING SPECIAL  ORDER WAY THAT DIDN'T SPLIT OUT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES UNLICENSED DRIVERS, FOR EXAMPLE, DIDN'T START OFF WITH  
THE PRESUMPTION NOT IMPOUND. COULD SEE THEM  WRITING ONE THAT WOULD COMPORT MORE CLOSELY WITH EXISTING  STATE LAW AND, NO, I'M NOT GOING THAT HERE THAT  NOT EXPERTISE. DON'T THINK IT'S THAT DRACONIAN.  MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR, HONOR, THINK RESPECTIVELY  
PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT UNLESS THE  TERMS THE SPECIAL ORDER ARE IDENTICAL THE VEHICLE  CODE THEMSELVES, L.A.P.D. CANNOT HAVE POLICY  BECAUSE WOULD THEN INSTRUCTING DIRECTING THEIR  OFFICERS WHATEVER TINY DIFFERENCES DIFFERENT THAT THE  
TERMS THE VEHICLE CODE ITSELF THAT WOULD UNLAWFUL.  THE COURT: DEPENDS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.  OKAY, I'D HAVE SEE IT. NOW WE'RE TRULY SPECULATING  ABOUT WHAT COULD WHAT MIGHT BE. BUT DON'T SEE THIS  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM BEING THAT DRACONIAN. RULE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS  THIS CASE THEN IT'S UPHELD THE APPELLATE COURT THAT  SOMEHOW THE L.A.P.D. WILL HANDCUFFED AND UNABLE HAVE  TRAINING THEIR OFFICERS, JUST DON'T SEE THAT.  
MR. KAUFMAN: CERTAINLY THE TRAINING OFFERED  AND THEN THE OFFICERS ARE EXPECTED CONFORM THEIR CONDUCT MANDATE THE WAY THAT SPECIAL ORDER WRITTEN THERE THE EXPECTATION THAT L.A.P.D. OFFICERS -YES ALL  THOSE TRAININGS WILL UNLAWFUL TOO.  
PLAINTIFFS HAVE OFFERED LIMITING PRINCIPLE  WHY THEIR INTERPRETATION SECTION WOULDN'T APPLY  ALL L.A.P.D. POLICIES THAT TOUCH MATTERS COVERED THE  VEHICLE CODE; THAT BREATHTAKING.  THE COURT: LET'S ASK. POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE,  
ARE YOU HANDCUFFING THE L.A.P.D. FROM DOING LEGITIMATE  FUNCTIONS TRAINING AND GIVING GUIDANCE THEIR  OFFICERS?  MR. LEVINE: ABSOLUTELY NOT, YOUR HONOR. THE  PROBLEM WITH SPECIAL ORDER NO. THAT REMOVED THE  
DISCRETION VESTED THE OFFICERS THAT WAS SPECIALLY VESTED  UNDER THE VEHICLE CODE AND MANDATED OUTCOME AND DEPRIVED  THEM THE DISCRETIONARY RIGHT.  WE'RE NOT SAYING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT  CANNOT PROMULGATE SPECIAL ORDERS THEY THAT ALL THE TIME.  
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS CASE IS, ITS FACE, THE SPECIAL  ORDER CONFLICTED WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS VEHICLE  CODE SECTION 14602.6. ONCE REMOVED THE DISCRETION AND  MANDATED THAT THERE SHOULDN'T ANY IMPOUNDS WITH RESPECT  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM DRIVERS DRIVING REVOKED SUSPENDED LICENSE  HAVING NOT EVER BEEN ISSUED LICENSE, THE SPECIAL ORDER  REALLY CONFLICTED WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAT WAS SET  FORTH THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 14602.6.  
THE COURT: RIGHT.  MR. LEVINE: THE LEGISLATURE EXPANDED, WANTED  EXPAND, THE AUTHORITY POLICE OFFICERS IMPOUND  UNDER  THE COURT: RIGHT.  
MR. LEVINE: -UNDER THAT SECTION BECAUSE THE  PRIOR CONDITION WAS THERE IMPOUNDS THERE WAS  LICENSED PASSENGER THE CAR. WHAT SPECIAL ORDER WOULD IS, EVEN THERE WAS LICENSED DRIVER AVAILABLE YOU  STILL CANNOT IMPOUND. AND THAT ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY  
WITH WHAT THE EXPRESS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WAS WITH 14602.6. THE COURT INDICATED EVERY JURISDICTION  IMPLEMENTED SPECIAL ORDER THERE WOULD BASICALLY  REPEAL MUNICIPAL FIAT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE MANDATES.  AND CONTRAST WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED,  
DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN REASONABLY LOOK SPECIAL ORDER  AND BELIEVE IT'S JUST GUIDANCE, IT'S MANDATORY.  THE COURT: DOES SAY, SHALL REFER 22651.  MR. SATO: THINK SAID DISCIPLINARY.  MR. LEVINE: SUBSECTIONS II, AND WHICH BREAK  
OFF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOKED AND SUSPENDED LICENSE  AND DRIVERS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED LICENSE BOTH COUCH  THE LANGUAGE SHALL RELEASE LIEU IMPOUND. THINK  THAT CONTRARY THE STATE LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  14602.6 CONTRARY THE STATED LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE SET  FORTH 14607.4 THAT YOUR HONOR REFERRED TO. AND EVEN IF,  EVEN IF, YOU'RE GOING APPLY THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING  DOCTRINE 14602.6, THAT WOULD ELIMINATE DISCRETIONARY  
ABILITY THE OFFICER LOOK ALL THE CONDITIONS THE  FIELD AND DECIDE WHETHER NOT IMPOUND APPROPRIATE.  THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DISCRETIONARY ABILITY WOULD EVEN UNDERMINED. FOR ALL THE REASONS THE COURT SET FORTH ITS  
TENTATIVE RULING, BELIEVE THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE  CORRECT AND THIS CERTAINLY CONFLICT. SPECIAL ORDER  CERTAINLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATE VEHICLE CODE.  THANK YOU.  THE COURT: DOES THAT SATISFY? TEND AGREE  
WITH COUNSEL.  MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR HONOR, COUPLE POINTS.  THINK THIS CLARIFYING ONE THING CLEAR ABOUT PLAINTIFFS  POSITION HERE. THEIR ARGUMENT PREMISED THE PROBLEM THEY SEE THAT SPECIAL ORDER REMOVES THE  
DISCRETION INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS WHICH THEY BELIEVE THE  VEHICLE CODE SOLELY VESTED WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL  OFFICERS THE EXPENSE THEIR SUPERIORS.  THIS CASE FUNDAMENTALLY QUESTION ABOUT WHO  GETS DECIDE HOW IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT IMPOUNDING  
WILL MADE LOS ANGELES. PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THAT THE  DISCRETION GIVEN THE VEHICLE CODE VESTED SOLELY WITH  INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS WHILE DEFENDANTS BELIEVE THAT LAW  ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES RETAIN THEIR TRADITIONAL AND VERY  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  BASIC AUTHORITY REGULATE HOW THEIR OFFICERS ARE GOING  CONDUCT THEMSELVES THE FIELD. THIS REALLY  EXTRAORDINARY VIEW SPECIAL ORDER  THE COURT: SORRY INTERRUPT YOU, BUT DISAGREE  
WITH THAT. YES, 14602 SAYS, MAY, AND IT'S WHOLLY  DISCRETIONARY AND DOESN'T LIST ANY CONDITIONS HOW  APPLY THAT. THAT WHAT THE COURT SAID THE CHP CASE  WHICH WHY WAS NOT VIOLATION MANDATORY DUTY. DON'T SEE THIS DRACONIAN SPLIT. CAN EASILY SEE  
HOW GOVERNMENT AGENCY, D.A.'S OFFICE, CITY ATTORNEY'S  OFFICE, L.A.P.D. OTHER AGENCIES CAN ISSUE TRAINING  AND GUIDANCE THE OFFICERS THAT DOESN'T MATERIALLY CHANGE  THE APPLICATION VARIOUS LAWS. JUST DON'T SEE THIS  BEING CHOICE BETWEEN OFFICERS RUNNING RAMPANT THE  
FIELD DOING THEIR OWN THING AND THE TOP BRASS REGULATING  WHAT AND HOW AND WHEN THEY IT. JUST DON'T SEE THIS  DRACONIAN SPLIT. CAN EASILY SEE THERE COULD BE, YOU  COULD HAVE SOME GUIDANCE AND TRAINING THAT WOULD OFFEND  THE PREEMPTION DOCUMENT.  
MR. KAUFMAN: RESPECTFULLY, YOUR, HONOR, THINK  THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPERIENCE PRIOR SPECIAL ORDER BEARS  OUT PRECISELY THOSE CONCERNS WHERE HAVE HAD INDIVIDUAL  OFFICERS DISCRETION AND GET WIDELY INCONSISTENT RESULTS  AROUND THE DEPARTMENT. WE'VE HAD OFFICERS REPORTING THEY  
ARE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THEIR OBLIGATIONS WERE UNDER THE  VEHICLE CODE.  THE COURT: ALL THE CITY LOS ANGELES HAS DONE  HERE MADE PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE SAYING WAS PRECINCT  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  LEVEL NOT MADE STATE LEVEL. NOW EVERY CITY THE  STATE GOING HAVE THEIR OWN POLICY. AND AGREE WITH  THE PLAINTIFF, AGAIN, IT'S REPEAL FIAT. EVERY EVIL THAT  YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW GOING MAGNIFIED  
STATE BASIS, CITY CITY, WHICH WHY SACRAMENTO HAS THIS.  MR. KAUFMAN: YOUR, HONOR, THE NOTION THIS  REPEAL FIAT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR, HONOR, MENTIONED  THERE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SPECIAL ORDER  
AND THE VEHICLE CODE, BUT THAT DIFFERENCE DOESN'T MEAN  THERE CONFLICT. THAT THE QUESTION, WHETHER THERE CONFLICT BETWEEN SPECIAL ORDER AND WHAT PROVIDES  THE VEHICLE CODE. INVITE PLAINTIFFS POINT ANYTHING THAT  
SPECIAL ORDER REQUIRES, ANYTHING REQUIRES, THAT  CONFLICT WITH WHAT THE VEHICLE CODE PROVIDES. THAT IS,  COULD OFFICER HIS HER OWN INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION  DECIDE OUT THE FIELD I'M GOING THIS ACCORDING  INTERNALLY, I'M GOING INTERNALLY WHAT SPECIAL ORDER  
DOES AND NOW SOMEHOW VIOLATES THE VEHICLE CODE AND THAT CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE, YOUR, HONOR.  MR. SATO: CAN REPLY  THE COURT: ASKED QUESTION THE PLAINTIFF.  MR. SATO: OKAY. THIS WON'T TAKE LONG.  
JUST THE POINT, AGAIN, THE FACE SPECIAL  ORDER SAYS THAT THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE RESIDES  WITH THE OFFICER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY THE  CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUST THE CORRECT RESTATEMENT WHAT  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING DOCTRINE IS.  AND BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AREA THIS  IMPLICATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT RIGHT  POSSESSION VEHICLE, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT  
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE CITY POSITION WHERE  HAS HAVE GUIDELINES. THINK FIRST BASIC TENET  LABOR LAW AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS YOU WANT YOUR EMPLOYER MAKE CLEAR CAN WHAT PROHIBITED AND WHAT  ALLOWED. THINK GUIDELINES ARE ALLOWED FROM THAT  
PERSPECTIVE.  THE COURT: GENERICALLY DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.  MR. SATO: THINK DISCUSSED YOUR BELIEFS THE  CASE LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE MUNICIPALITY THAT DOESN'T  HAVE GUIDELINES DOESN'T TRAIN HAVE THESE KINDS  
RULES REGARDING SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CITIZENS AND THIRD PARTIES ARE GOING IMPLICATED,  THAT MAKES BOTH THE CITY AND THE OFFICER MORE VULNERABLE  NOT LESS VULNERABLE CIVIL LIABILITY.  REGARDING THE LEGISLATURE, THE COMMUNITY CARE  
DOCTRINE CONSTITUTIONAL, ITS SOURCE THE FOURTH  AMENDMENT. ITS CREATION JUDGE MADE. MAY THAT THE  STATE LEGISLATURE COULD PERSUADED ADDRESS SOME OTHER  STEREOTYPICAL SITUATIONS WHERE PROCEDURE ISSUE WOULD COME  UP. BUT THIS STILL SOMETHING THAT THINK HAS  
PLAYED OUT CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. AND THAT WHY  THINK THE FACIAL CHALLENGE THAT BEING MOUNTED SPECIAL  ORDER THIS CASE UNWARRANTED.  THE COURT: DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU WERE TALKING  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  ABOUT HIGHER STANDARD AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE  THAT NOT WHAT READ. THIS STANDARD PREEMPTION  ISSUE. IT'S STANDARD PREEMPTION EITHER  ISN'T. DON'T SEE THIS ANYMORE CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLEX  
THAN THAT.  MR. SATO: THE WAY CONCEPTUALIZE BECAUSE  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, THE PROHIBITION  AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES UNREASONABLE WARRANTLESS  SEARCHES. CONCEPTUALLY SPECIAL ORDER NOT DIFFERENT  
THAN OTHER POLICE GUIDELINES, DISCIPLINARY RULES AND  CAN ADDRESS OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT PERSONS ARE IMPLICATED EXCESSIVE FORCE POLICY FOR  EXAMPLE, THOSE KINDS THINGS. AND WHETHER THERE  CONFLICT WITH THE VEHICLE CODE, THE COMMUNITY CARETAKING  
DOCTRINE, THINK THE CASES SAY, URGE THE COURT TAKE  ANOTHER LOOK THE TORRES AND WILLIAMS CASES THAT HAVE  CITED COMMUNITY CARETAKING TRUMPS THE VEHICLE CODE.  AND ONE OTHER POINT WANTED MAKE, AGAIN  REGARDING WHETHER IT'S THE OFFICER WHO GOING HAVE  
COMPLETE DISCRETION. ALTHOUGH 14602 A-1 I'M GETTING  MIXED UP, THE PARTS REGARDING THE DECISION IMPOUND,  REFERS WHAT THE OFFICER CAN DO. ALL THE REST  REGARDING HOW THE VEHICLE -HOW LONG THE VEHICLE SHOULD  STORED, WHEN SHALL RELEASED AND ON, DESCRIBES THE  
DUTIES QUOTE ISSUING AGENCY, CLOSED QUOTE. THINK THE  CITY HAS THE RIGHT MAKE REGULATIONS HOW ITS OWN DUTIES  UNDER THE CODE ARE GOING PUT INTO EFFECT.  THE COURT: JUST BROAD BRUSH, DON'T  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  DISAGREE, BUT DEPENDS HOW IT'S DONE.  STURGEON, YOU WERE CHALLENGED HERE MINUTE AGO  INTERVENOR.  MR. ORFANEDES: JUST COUPLE POINTS, YOUR,  
HONOR, THINK HAVE BEATEN SOME THE PREEMPTION ISSUES DEATH.  THE COURT HAS NOT YET RULED OUR REQUEST FOR  JUDICIAL NOTICE.  THE COURT: GRANTED.  
MR. ORFANEDES: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. HAD ALSO MADE SUBSIDIARY ARGUMENT THAT SPECIAL  ORDER CONFLICTS WITH 14607.6 WHICH THE MANDATORY  30-DAY IMPOUND PROVISION THAT APPLIES VERY LIMITED  CIRCUMSTANCES. OUR REVIEW THE SPECIAL ORDER THAT  
BASICALLY ELIMINATES THAT. DOES NOTE THAT CERTAIN  IMPOUNDS AFFECTED UNDER 14602 SHOULD INCLUDE ANNOTATION  THAT VEHICLE ELIGIBLE FOR FORFEITURE UNDER 14627.6,  BUT THE IMPOUND STILL BEING EFFECTED UNDER THE MORE  LENIENT 14602 PROVISION.  
THE COURT: COURSE.  MR. ORFANEDES: OUR VIEW THAT DOESN'T ANSWER  THAT. SPECIAL ORDER PRACTICALLY ELIMINATES 14607, AND  HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT.  THE COURT: AGREE. OBVIOUSLY DOES 
MR. ORFANEDES: JUST FEW  THE COURT: -THAT ONE THE REASONS WHY  ARE HERE.  MR. ORFANEDES: FEW OTHER THINGS WANTED  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  NOTE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT UNIFORMITY  LACK UNIFORMITY. ONE THE THINGS THINK  IMPORTANT ABOUT THE TWO STATUTES, 14602 AND 14607, THEY  CREATE UNIFORMITY DETERRENT EFFECT ACROSS THE STATE. YOU HAVE MUNICIPALITIES DECIDING THEY ARE GOING THEIR  OWN WAY WHETHER NOT THEY ARE GOING ENFORCE THE  ISSUES, THE STATUTES, YOU'RE GOING DESTROY, YOU HAVE  DESTROYED THE UNIFORMITY THE DETERRENTS THAT THE  LEGISLATURE INTENDED HAVE. THINK THAT IMPORTANT  
POINT NOTE.  FINALLY THE PREEMPTION FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUE,  WHETHER NOT THE STATUTE PREEMPTED DOESN'T AFFECT ANY  SORT FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSIDERATION. IT'S EITHER  PREEMPTED IT'S NOT. ACLU POINTED THE U.S. VERSUS  
ARIZONA LAWSUIT. THAT CASE THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THE  ARIZONA STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WAS PREEMPTED.  THE ANALYSIS WASN'T WHETHER NOT ARIZONA HAD GOOD  REASON FOR WHY PUBLIC POLICY REASON FOR WHY WAS  PREEMPTED, WAS JUST PREEMPTED.  
THE COURT: RIGHT.  MR. ORFANEDES: FINALLY THE CITY'S COMMUNITY  CARETAKING DOCTRINE APPLICATION 14606.6 SITUATIONAL  DEFENSE. THEY WON CASE EARLIER THIS YEAR CLAIMING THERE  WAS FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND APPLICATION 14602 CITED THAT OUR BRIEFS, MIRANDA VERSUS BONNER.  THAT SITUATION EARLIER, MARCH THIS YEAR, THEY WERE  DEFENDING SAYING THERE WAS COMMUNITY CARETAKING  DOCTRINE. THE ISSUE THERE, TODAY THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  ELSE.  THE COURT: OKAY. BRIEFLY I'M TRIAL.  MR. KAUFMAN: UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, INVITED  PLAINTIFFS SHOW ANY ACTUAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT SPECIAL  
ORDER CALLS FOR AND THE VEHICLE CODE AND THEY CANNOT  POINT SINGLE EXHIBIT. THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH THE  WHOLE CASE, YOUR, HONOR. THERE CONFLICT WITH WHAT  SPECIAL ORDER REQUIRES AND WHAT THE STATE'S  THE COURT: THEN WHY ARE HERE? THEN THIS  
ACADEMIC EXERCISE. OBVIOUSLY THERE DIFFERENCE THAT  WHY HAVE LAWSUIT.  MR. KAUFMAN: BUT DIFFERENCE DOESN'T MEAN  CONFLICT, YOUR, HONOR. SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL  GUIDELINES REGULATIONS, WHATEVER TERM WANT GIVE  
IT, INSTRUCT OFFICERS HOW THEY SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR  VERY BROAD DISCRETION GIVEN UNDER 14602 DOESN'T MEAN THERE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISION.  THIS VERY COMMON LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY THE  SENSE HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY GIVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT  
AGENCIES, AND THEY NEED INSTRUCT THEIR OFFICERS HOW EXERCISE THAT ACCORDING UNIFORM STANDARDS.  THE COURT: SAID, THIS REAL WORLD ISSUE  THAT HAS MADE REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE. AND I'M NOT SAYING  I'M NOT SAYING IT'S BAD DIFFERENCE. COULD GOOD  
DIFFERENCE FROM PUBLIC POLICY STANDPOINT; JUST  FACT. IT'S PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE. THE APPROPRIATE BODY HEAR THIS THE LEGISLATURE. HAVE MOVE ON. ONE LAST WORD? YOU ARE  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  WINNING, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE LAST WORD.  MR. LEVINE: WE'LL SUBMIT.  MR. SATO: GOING BACK SOMETHING YOUR HONOR SAID THE VERY BEGINNING OUR MEETING, IT'S NOT THE CITY'S  
POSITION THAT SOMEHOW 14602 THAT SERIES STATUTES  IT'S FACE UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT NOT THE CITY'S ARGUMENT.  THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LOOK. THIS HAS BEEN VERY  WELL DONE. APPLAUD ALL THE PARTIES FOR THE EXCELLENT  WORK WRITTEN AND ORAL. BUT I'M GOING GRANT BOTH  
PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONS, SUMMARY JUDGMENTS, AND  DENY THE TWO OTHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS.  OKAY. HAVE EXCELLENT RECORD HERE. WISH  ALL YOU, ASSUME THERE GOING NEXT STEP AND  WISH ALL YOU GOOD LUCK THE NEXT STEP.  
MR. LEVINE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.  MR. SATO: KNOW YOUR HONOR'S RULING TODAY DOESN'T REMEDY MAYBE DOES, BUT JUST DIDN'T HEAR IT. WOULD ASK STAY ANY REMEDY THAT YOUR HONOR WAS  CONTEMPLATING THAT WAS PART YOUR HONOR'S RULING.  
THE COURT: NO. THIS WAS DECLARATORY RELIEF AND  INJUNCTIONS, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE EXTENT THERE INJUNCTION, I'M GRANTING THAT. NOW  YOU WANT STAY. DON'T KNOW, HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT,  YOU WANT STAY APPEAL, RIGHT?  
MR. SATO: YES.  THE COURT: WHAT WRONG WITH THAT?  MR. ORFANEDES: FIRST ALL, DEFENDANTS HAVE  VERY HEAVY BURDEN STAYS PENDING APPEAL. THEY HAVE  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM  MAKE SHOWING SUBSTANTIAL HARM. THERE HAS BEEN  SHOWING WHATSOEVER. MAYBE THEY WANT OPPORTUNITY TRY  AND SHOW THAT, BUT CERTAINLY HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING HERE WHY THIS GOING CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM.  
WHAT WE'RE EFFECTIVELY DOING RETURNING THE  STATUS QUO PRE-APRIL, 2012. DON'T KNOW WHY THERE SOME  URGENT NEED FIX WHAT WAS BROKEN BACK APRIL, 2012, AND  NOW THE COURT SHOULD STAY ITS RULING.  THE COURT: THEY HAVE POINT VIEW, AND IT'S THE  
OPINION THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TOP PEOPLE  WITH WHOM RESPECT, IT'S THEIR OPINION, DON'T AGREE WITH  THEM, BUT THEIR OPINION THIS NECESSARY AND MEANINGFUL THE OPERATION THEIR DEPARTMENT. I'M INCLINED  GRANT THE STAY PENDING APPEAL JUST CAN HAVE HEARD APPELLATE COURT, AND I'M CONFIDENT I'M RIGHT, BUT  JUST JURIES HAVE TOLD OTHERWISE, HAS THE COURT  APPEAL.  MR. LEVINE: YOUR HONOR, MAY HEARD THAT. THE EXTENT JUDGMENT HASN'T EVEN BEEN ENTERED THIS  
CASE YET.  THE COURT: THAT'S ANOTHER POINT, YES.  MR. LEVINE: PERHAPS THIS MATTER CAN BRIEFED  TERMS THE CITY THE INTERVENORS MOTION FOR STAY.  THERE GOING CHANGE WHAT NOW THE STATUS  
QUO UNTIL JUDGMENT ENTERED, AND WOULD GIVE OUR  CLIENTS OPPORTUNITY CONSIDER THE STAY REQUEST.  THE COURT: NOT HOSTILE STAY ALL FOR  ALL THE REASONS YOU'RE SAYING. BUT THINK THE PLAINTIFFS  
COALITION COURT REPORTERS LOS ANGELES  
213.471.2966 WWW.CCROLA.COM 

SHOULD HAVE CHANCE BRIEF THIS. AND THERE 
ESSENTIALLY CHANGE UNTIL HAVE ORDER. LETS WAIT FOR THE ORDER. YOU FOLKS WANT 
BRIEF STAY NOT, I'M TELLING YOU I'M INCLINED GRANT STAY AND UNDER THESE FACTS. LOT TIMES PEOPLE ASK 
FOR STAY AND SAY NO, THE COURT APPEAL WANTS 
STAY THEY CAN IT. THINK THIS SORT CASE 
MIGHT GOOD IDEA. I'LL ABSOLUTELY WAIT HEAR READ 
WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE SAY THAT ISSUE. 

MR. LEVINE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

MR. SATO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: THANK YOU, GOOD WORK. 

(END PROCEEDING.)



Sign Up for Updates!