City Council votes to dump unpopular impound law

By Bob Young
Seattle Times staff reporter

Tom Carr

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

The City Council voted yesterday to dump Seattle's vehicle-impound law for drivers with the least-serious kind of license suspensions — but not before City Attorney Tom Carr and two council members criticized those who repealed the law for being fiscally irresponsible and possibly putting more poor people behind bars.

The vote to repeal was 6-2.

The majority argued that the law had to go because of a disproportionate impact on poor people and African Americans.

"The solution (impound law) we have now is not working," said Councilman Richard Conlin. "We're still seeing disproportionate impact. We need a creative new tool."

Council members Jim Compton and Jan Drago voted to keep the law. Repeal sponsor Nick Licata was away on vacation and missed the vote.

The mayor has 30 days to accept or reject the council's vote.

The law allows the city to tow, hold and auction cars driven by people who have third-degree driver's-license suspensions. Such drivers have not been convicted of injuring others in accidents but rather have lost their licenses because of unpaid traffic tickets — mainly for violations such as speeding and failing to obey traffic signals. To get their cars back, they often must pay fines and fees that can exceed $500.

Of the almost 5,000 cars impounded by the city in 2002, 36 percent were driven by African Americans, who make up 8 percent of Seattle's population. Impound-law opponents said the law amounts to economic injustice because it treats violators who pay tickets better than those who do not, regardless of the public danger posed by both groups of drivers.

A city-funded study found that drivers with suspended licenses were 2.5 times more likely to get in auto accidents than drivers who hadn't lost their driving privileges. But the study did not conclude that impounding cars deterred people from driving with suspended licenses.

Drago said she was disappointed that repeal advocates didn't come up with more alternatives to impounding vehicles and did not analyze the fiscal impact of repealing the law, which she called "irresponsible."
 
Carr estimated that it could cost $1 million a year to prosecute scofflaws without the threat of impoundment to force them to pay tickets.

Compton said he was concerned for law-abiding citizens who suffer injuries and expenses at the hands of drivers with suspended licenses. Like Carr, he also said the city would now likely send more people to jail, and "people of color and low income will go to jail at disproportionate rates" instead of having their cars seized.

Repeal advocates hope they have found a middle ground between jailing people and ignoring scofflaws. They want the city to adopt a relicensing program like King County's. That program gives people the chance to create a payment plan for traffic fines or pay through community service or a work program.

A recent county study found that 74 percent of the study's subjects successfully completed the relicensing program. The same study found the program was cost-effective, with the county receiving at least $2 in benefits for every $1 spent. "By any measure, the Relicensing Programs appear to be very successful," the study concluded.

Without the impound law, Councilman Richard McIver acknowledged that some scofflaws may have to go to jail. But if so, he said, the process would be more fair than having a car seized by police on the roadside.

"If they go to jail it will be because they were found guilty in court, where we may have a chance at justice," said McIver, the only African American on the council.

Bob Young: 206-464-2174 or byoung@seattletimes.com