Deputies Arrest Passenger Debating Unlawful Impoundment by Deputies

[XLFD]

It's sobering to realize the amount of power our county sheriff seems to believe they have over your rights and property.  A recent case-in-point happened and was reported in the December 20th edition of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) in the 'From the Record' column on page three.

The driver appears to have their own problems by not having a license and having a bench warrant out for their arrest.  The passenger, who owned the vehicle, is a whole other entity.  There is nothing in the article claiming his vehicle did not have proper registration and insurance, yet the deputies wanted to impound his car for some reason.  The secretary of state's office has a complete list of the reasons why your car could be impounded. 

Michigan law (MCL 257.252d) outlines circumstances when a police agency may authorize immediate removal of a vehicle from private or public property to a place of safekeeping at the owner's expense. The conditions for immediate removal include when the vehicle or vessel is:

+ Parked or idling on the highway so that it creates an immediate public hazard or an obstruction of traffic.
+ Parked in a posted tow-away zone.
+ A threat to public safety because its presence impedes rescue efforts during fire, flood, storm, snow, natural or man-made disaster or other emergency.
+ Hampering the use of private property by the owner or person in charge of that property or is parked in a manner which impedes the movement of another vehicle.
+ Illegally stopped, idling or parked in a designated disability parking space.
+ Located in a clearly identified access aisle or access lane immediately adjacent to a disability parking space.
+ Interfering with the use of a ramp or a curb-cut by people with disabilities.
+ Believed to be stolen.
+ Seized to preserve evidence of a crime.
+ Involved in a crash and cannot be safely operated from the scene of the crash.

Impoundment is a state seizure of property that is limited by the Fourth Amendment, it should generally be practiced only when a property owner is absent or unwilling, and there is no other alternative.  In this scenario, the only reasons the vehicle could be impounded seems to be the first and last ones on the list.  The narrative indicates the driver had tried to flee but was blocked by the other car, so it seems legitimate to say that the car was still drivable and shouldn't have been impounded, unless it was deemed unsafe to drive, which wasn't implied by the article.  

Had it been unsafe, or had the vehicle been disabled due to the collision, the owner should have been allowed the opportunity to call a tow truck themselves and have it taken to wherever he wanted to take it.  That doesn't seem to be the case, he was not apparently allowed that opportunity, and when deputies told him that it would need to be impounded, he probably knew that part of the law better than the deputies did.   

For these deputies, apparently not liking their authority disrespected decided to charge the owner with disorderly conduct and arrest him for that misdemeanor.  Now, here is where the deputies prove themselves totally alienated from what the laws of our state actually say.  There is a list of twelve different ways a person can be disorderly, they are part of MCL 750.167 and there is absolutely no place where arguing over why your vehicle is being illegally seized in total repugnance to the Fourth Amendment is even close to being there.  Not even close.  

The 24 year old owner of a vehicle, who had no part in a crash and apparent attempt to flee the scene, not only has his property improperly seized by county officials, but has his liberty seized when he utilizes his First Amendment right to argue with them about the unlawful seizure of his property.  Is there anything more scary for law-abiding citizens of Mason County than seeing such abuses being performed on their innocent fellow citizens by local 'law enforcement officials' and implicitly condoned by local 'media'?

[Willy]

I think the last 2 were the reasons for seizing the car. If this was a hit and run it makes sense that the car would be used as evidence. The police probably arrested the owner of the car for gross stupidity by allowing his friend to drive his car. I bet the woman who jumped into a car with the stranger in the other news story and the owner of this car are related. They must have the same dumb gene. The MC press should have a dumbest criminal contest at the end of each year. Mason County has a boat load of them so it might be hard to choose.

+ Seized to preserve evidence of a crime.
+ Involved in a crash and cannot be safely operated from the scene of the crash.

[AQUAMAN]

Thumbs up Willy.

[XLFD]

Willy, I would like to agree with you, being that it's Christmas Eve and all, but you will notice that the driver is not being arrested with any form of hit and run charges, but rather 'driving without a license' and 'failure to appear'.  They would not need to impound the car to show he was DWL, especially when the car isn't his, but his friend's who was right there and capable of having the car towed by the equidistant Quinn's or Abrahamsen's if it had been inoperable.  

So here's what it condenses to.  You have the MCSO trying to impound a vehicle without any lawful reason applicable, that's called theft.  They use their authority and threats to accomplish that unlawful goal, that's called robbery.  They arrest somebody for expressing their beliefs in what the law says and protesting their lawless decision to take his property, that's unlawful imprisonment and a violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of the car's owner.  

If anybody other than the driver has done anything wrong here, it's the deputies, and their actions seem worse in scope.  This car owner, who is not alleged to have done anything in violation of the law, has seen his car get damaged, then impounded, and then seen himself arrested on a baseless charge of disorderly person.  It's unacceptable.

[Freedom Seeker]

I know of a young person, who was involved in a single car accident (icy condition hit a bridge on an overpass near shelby) on the US31 freeway, the car was operable? (The radiator started a leak), but the state police forced them to have it towed. So police call the tow company and then charge nearly $300 for a ten mile tow charge to Strait's. If you can't pay the towing and they usually demand on the spot, the storage adds up $30 day... That's $900 a month in storage plus the tow. That's often why they have sheriff auction cars. Someone couldnt afford to pay towing charges and storage. It's a maddening racket that's been going on for years in west michigan.