AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Miscellaneous: Towing
A city police chief revoked a towing permit for a state licensed towing company, based on information received from a competing towing company that the state licenses had lapsed. In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the revoked towing company, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related state-law claims against the city and the police department. The revocation was based on a complaint by a competing tow company that the plaintiff's state-issued licenses had lapsed, and this could be acted on. Rountree v. Dyson, #17-30443, 892 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2018).
The owner of a truck sued a towing
company for allegedly wrongfully holding onto his truck for 38 days and
requiring him to pay $1,385 to get it back. The sheriff's department's decision
to impound, tow, and store the truck was reasonable under the community
caretaking doctrine. The "sheriff's department's impounding of the truck
did not violate plaintiff's right to travel, was not an unreasonable seizure,
and did not misapply the Vehicle Code to his noncommercial use of the
truck." The plaintiff lacked registration for his light truck and did not
have a driver's license, and the fact that he did not use his truck to
transport people or property for hire did not exempt him from applicable
licensing laws. Halajian v. D&B Towing, #F063071, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1, 2012
Cal. App. Lexis 949 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.).
Federal
constitutional due process did not require a city to provide advance notice
each time it towed one of the plaintiff's trailers. Additionally, the mere fact
that the city's towing practices allegedly violated applicable California state
law did not qualify as establishing a claim for violation of federal civil
rights. Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. Los Angeles, #07-56521, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 23016 (9th Cir.).
A vehicle owner's claim that the towing of his
vehicle violated state law failed to raise a federal civil rights claim, so
that summary judgment for the plaintiff in a federal civil rights lawsuit had
to be overturned on appeal. Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. Los
Angeles, No. 07-56521, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15280 (9th Cir.).
A county sheriff could not be sued, on the basis
of his role as supervisor of deputies who arrived on the scene after
FBI agents arrested the plaintiff for bank robbery, and impounded the
getaway car, resulting in the impound lot later selling the vehicle after
sending the arrestee a notice and publicly posting one. Even if the deputies
were found to have violated the plaintiff's rights, the sheriff did not
personally participate in, authorize, or acquiesce in their actions. The court
also rejected the argument that the impounding of the vehicle under these
circumstances constituted conversion since a law enforcement officer may tow
and impound a vehicle following a driver's arrest for bank robbery or similar
offenses. Eaton v. Whetsel, No. 07-6262, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11367 (Unpub.
10th Cir.).
While a city's municipal code did not authorize
the seizure of the plaintiff's three unregistered vehicles, the inapplicability
of the ordinance in question was not clearly established so that officers were
entitled to qualified immunity for having the vehicles towed. Private companies
involved in the towing were entitled to a defense of good faith when they acted
at police direction and had no reason to believe that the seizure of the
vehicles was improper. Tarantion v. Syputa, No. 06-16178, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
6718 (9th Cir.).
City and towing company did not violate the
rights of a motorist by placing a "boot" on her car, and having it
towed and impounded from its location in a condominium building's parking area
after the motorist failed to pay certain parking tickets. The vehicle owner had
no reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking area because it was shared
in common with other occupants of the building. The seizure of the vehicle
under the circumstances was authorized by an Illinois state statute, and the
plaintiff did not claim that the established procedures for such seizures were
violated. Police officers had probable cause to believe that the car was
subject to impounding, and the applicable law did not require a warrant to boot
and tow the vehicle. Kosyla v. City of Des Plaines, No. 06-2032, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 28034 (7th Cir.).
In lawsuit over city's towing of apparently
abandoned or junked vehicle from vacant lot, neither the lot owner nor his
brother, who claimed he had an ownership interest in the car, had a valid
federal civil rights claim. The lot owner's privacy rights were not violated by
the towing, and his brother had no identifiable ownership interest in the
vehicle which was sufficient to have put the city on notice that he claimed
ownership. Benton v. City of Higginsville, No. WD 64861, 181 S.W.3d 190 (Mo.
App. 2005). [N/R]
Impoundment of car from the owners' driveway after an
officer observed the husband teaching his unlicensed wife how to drive was an
unreasonable seizure unjustified by the "community caretaking"
doctrine. Summary judgment for city and towing company in lawsuit was improper.
Miranda v. City of Cornelius, No. 04-35940, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24666 (9th
Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
Towing service operator failed to show that new
sheriff modified his towing area in retaliation for his support of another
candidate for sheriff, or that the sheriff and his undersheriff engaged in a
pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO in connection with
maintenance of a list of favored tow service operators. Roger Whitmore's Auto.
Serv. v. Del Re, #04-1978, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20296 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
Truck owners "conclusory" allegations
that the county and the company which towed his vehicle were engaged in a
"conspiracy" to operate a "shakedown racket" and deprive
truckers of their property was insufficient to state a federal civil rights
claim. Hansel v. All Gone Towing Co., No. 04-14710, 132 Fed. Appx. 308 (11th
Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Vehicle towing company could not recover damages
under Illinois state law against city and its mayor for their alleged request
to the owner of a private parking lot to cease doing business with them and
switch to a local towing company. The alleged action by the mayor was a
"discretionary act" for which immunity was available under the Local
Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101 et
seq. Kevin's Towing, Inc. v. Thomas, No. 2-03-1118, 814 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill. App.
2nd Dist. 2004).[N/R]
Owner of auto which was impounded for evidentiary
purposes and retained on condition that he pay towing and storage fees could
not pursue civil rights claim to regain his auto when he failed to show that
available state-law remedies were inadequate, violating his due process rights.
Plaintiff did, however, have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the
city's action in spray-painting his vehicle after 30-days of impoundment, as
statute under which it was done only applied to abandoned, lost, stolen or
unclaimed cars which the city had a right to dispose of. Lee v. City of
Chicago, No. 02-1503, 330 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Placing parking tickets on illegally parked cars
was sufficient to provide due process notice to vehicle owner of the claimed
parking violations and of the fact that accumulating three unpaid and
unappealed such tickets could result in the placing of an immobilizing
"wheel boot" on the auto. Plaintiff showed, however, that the city
failed to provide a "meaningful opportunity" to be heard before or
after the placement of such a "boot" on his car, since the tickets
did not explain how to contest the validity of the placement or explain how and
when the "boot" could be removed. Individual defendants, however,
including the city's mayor, a police officer, and a parking monitor, were entitled
to qualified immunity from liability because the law in the area of "wheel
booting" was not clearly established. Gross v. Carter, 265 F. Supp. 2d 995
(W.D. Ark. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds denial of
permit to operate tow truck under a municipal regulation making persons with
convictions of specified criminal offenses, documented mental illnesses or
unsafe driving records ineligible for a permit. Cole v. City of Dallas,
#01-10194, 314 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Sheriff's department did
not violate the due process rights of the operator of a towing service by
removing his company from a rotation list. Despite company's seventeen years of
service, it had no property interest in being on the tow rotation list, and
internal departmental rules establishing a policy of removing companies only
for "sufficient cause" did not create a property interest because
they were not required by statute or ordinance. Plaintiff operator also did not
establish a First Amendment violation based on his argument that the removal
was in retaliation for his public criticism of the rotation system. S&S
Research, Inc. v. Paulszcyk, No. 01-2456, 44 Fed. Appx. 744 (7th Cir.
2002).[N/R]
Overturning trial court's grant of summary
judgment for defendant city in motorist's federal civil rights lawsuit, appeals
court also holds that the motorist was not entitled, as a matter of due
process. to cross-examine the officer who issued the towing order, but that the
city had the burden, under California law, of demonstrating that the seizure of
the car was valid. David v. City of Los Angeles, #00-57091, 307 F.3d 1143 (9th
Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Florida statute allowing a county to operate a
wrecker operator system did not give a county sheriff authority to establish a
system under which towing companies would rotate in providing services at the
site of a wreck or to threaten arrests of tow company's employees for allegedly
soliciting business at the scene of a wreck when the county board had never
adopted the sheriff's rules by a formal vote. Rebel Enterprises, Inc. v. Palm
Beach Sheriff, #01-15738, 299 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
A city's delay in setting a hearing date for a
number of weeks after a motorist's car was towed for alleged parking
violations, despite the owner's "insistent and immediate" demand for
a hearing violated both a California state statute, Ann. Cal. Vehicle Code Sec.
22852, and constitutional due process, as clearly established twenty-five years
before in Stypmann v. City & County of San Francisco, 557 F.2d 1338 (9th
Cir. 1977).
Business owners were entitled to notice and an
opportunity to be heard before their vehicle was towed from a private
residential property. Redwood v. Lierman, No. 4-01-0612, 772 N.E.2d 803 (Ill.
App. 4th Dist. 2002). [N/R]
Owner of unregistered auto not entitled
to notice or hearing before vehicle is towed Scofield v. City of Hillsborough,
862 F2d 759 (9th Cir. 1988).