PATRICIA SAMPLES v. EDMUND G.BROWN, PART II 01:29:2007
PATRICIA SAMPLES v
PATRICIA SAMPLES v. EDMUND G.BROWN,
Filed 1/11/07
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
PATRICIA SAMPLES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Attorney General, etc.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A112343, A112594
(SonomaCounty
Super. Ct. No. SCV 231307)
STORY CONTINUED FROM PART I………
The trial court pointed out that the impounding agency in Smith did not consider lack of actual knowledge to be a mitigating circumstance. But, the fact that section 14602.6(b) was misinterpreted by the impounding agency in Smith does not support a finding in this case that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face. â€
Description
Vehicle Code Sec. 14602.6(b)'s provision that mitigating circumstances may be considered in determining whether unlicensed drivers may retrieve their impounded vehicles is not unconstitutionally vague on its face nor does it violate non-delegation doctrine where both statute and case law construing it provide examples of mitigating circumstances. Sec. 14602.6 does not violate equal protection clause by authorizing the automatic release of an impounded vehicle to a rental car agency while simultaneously requiring private individuals to appear at a storage hearing and satisfy one of the statutory circumstances for an early release. Sec. 23109.2(a), which provides that a vehicle "may be impounded for not more than 30 days," does not violate non-delegation doctrine.
