Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers
and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses: Appendix 4

Profiles of State and Local Agency Implementation Efforts: Strategy 4.1 A2 (Lubbock, Texas)

Emphasis Area
2.1—Keeping Unlicensed/Suspended/Revoked Drivers Off the Road

Objective
2.1 C—Restrict Mobility Through Vehicle Modification

Strategy Name and Number
Immobilize, impound, forfeit vehicle (Strategy 2.1 C1)

Agency and Jurisdiction
Santa Barbara Police Department (City of Santa Barbara)

Problem(s) Identified
Unlicensed/Suspended/Revoked (U/S/R) are greatly over represented in fatal crashes. These offenders do not respond to more traditional measures to reduce U/S/R driving. Seizure and impoundment of the vehicle in which the offender is apprehended has an immediate, as well as lasting impact.

Goals and Objectives Established
To discourage U/S/R driving, immediate removal of the vehicle used by the offender has both an immediate and a lasting impact. The measure is drastic, but these drivers have already failed to respond to more traditional measures, and more severe sanctions are necessary.

Description of Strategy Implemented
This strategy is generally applied to multiple offenders; that is, those who have not complied with license restriction, although some legislation allows immobilization, impoundment, or seizure for a first offense. Rather than simply confiscating the license plate, the entire vehicle may be rendered unavailable to the offender through immobilizing the vehicle (e.g., "booting" a wheel or placing a "club" on the steering wheel to immobilize it), removing it from the offender's possession, or even seizing it for sale by the state.

Immobilization, impoundment, or seizure may be applied to a vehicle owned by the offender and in which the offender is apprehended, or it may apply to any vehicle, regardless of ownership, in which the offender is apprehended. The latter approach appears to be more effective, although it is also more controversial.

Summary of Implementation Effort (Lessons Learned)
In January, 1995, new California legislation required police to impound, for 30 days, vehicles driven by U/S/R drivers who have been stopped for a traffic violation. Legislation was also enacted allowing forfeiture of the vehicle if the driver has a prior conviction on record. The Santa Barbara Police Department (SBPD) immediately developed procedures to implement the new legislation, and conducted a license checkpoint beginning at 12:01 am January 1, 1995. Their first suspended driver was apprehended at 12:03 am Since then, SBPD has vigorously enforced both the vehicle impoundment and the vehicle forfeiture legislation.

Law enforcement was involved with drafting the law, so that their concerns were addressed early on. Prior to implementation of the law, SBPD worked closely with the local District Attorney and judges to make sure that all the necessary participants worked together smoothly. Required forms were developed and procedures clarified.

Officers were trained, with a focus on their understanding of the high risk posed by U/S/R drivers. The public was fully informed of the new policy through news releases. AAA and MADD assisted in educating the public.

Upon arrest of an offending driver, the vehicle is towed immediately and placed in storage until ultimate disposal, based on ownership and prior record of offender. Vehicle forfeiture occurs in the case of a second offense. Vehicles are sold at public auction, and monies in excess of towing, storage, and processing fees are divided between the state of California and the enforcement agency involved. Existing tow companies are used, and their participation is systematically rotated to ensure fair treatment. Tow companies must meet all requirements, including secure vehicle storage.

The careful planning preceding the implementation of this legislation, including generating broad support from both the public and participating agencies, was critical to the success of this program. It was not enacted in isolation, however. Strategy 2.1 A1 (increased enforcement in selected areas) and Strategy 2.1 A2 (routine linkage of citations to driver record) were implemented simultaneously. The combination of these strategies illustrates the value of addressing the U/S/R driving problem through multiple measures rather than seeking a "silver bullet" to resolve the problem once and for all.

Summary of the Results ¹
Based upon the entire state of California, evaluation of the specific (the effects on offenders who lost their vehicles under the impoundment law) and general (the effect on U/S/R drivers who did not experience vehicle impoundment) deterrent effects of vehicle impoundment on subsequent driving found that U/S/R drivers with no prior U/S/R convictions had 24.7 percent fewer subsequent U/S/R convictions, 18.1 percent fewer subsequent traffic convictions, and 24.7 percent fewer subsequent crashes. For repeat offenders, impoundment had an even larger impact. They had 34.2 percent fewer subsequent U/S/R convictions, 22.3 percent fewer subsequent traffic convictions, and 37.6 percent fewer subsequent crashes. However, there was no evidence that simply threatening vehicle impoundment prevented U/S/R driving. Apparently drivers had to experience the impoundment for there to be an impact.

Santa Barbara has a strong citywide program that is highly publicized, informing the entire community that if you are stopped for any reason, including at license checkpoints, and you do not have a valid license, you will lose the vehicle for at least 30 days. A second offense leads to vehicle forfeiture. Although their program has not been subjected to scientific evaluation, they report that in the first six months of the program, total crashes were down 5.4 percent; injury crashes decreased 20.4 percent; and hit-and-run crashes dropped 13.6 percent. Of particular interest is the reduction they report in hit-and-run crashes. They also find dramatic reductions in the number of U/S/R drivers detected on the road (including at license checkpoints). Driver licensing reports that more unlicensed drivers are seeking license reinstatement, and more persons with traffic warrants are going to court to clear the cases. An interesting spinoff is that more "deadbeat" dads are meeting their support obligations. Enforcement reports that more drivers have (valid?) identification.

A concern about a potential heavy increase in court cases failed to materialize. From January 1, 1995, through October, 2000, of 8,738 vehicles towed, 578 were forfeited. However, the first 5 years of the program saw a total of only 16 contested cases.

Since 1995 California law has provided for vehicle forfeiture for U/S/R drivers who have previously been convicted for driving without a valid license. A survey found that in communities not implementing the forfeiture law, the major reason given is lack of support from the District Attorney. Other reasons were that the benefit-cost potential was poor, the procedures were too cumbersome, the 30-day impoundment often amounted to forfeiture because many vehicles went to lien sale, and there was a high proportion of third-party owners. Santa Barbara and other communities enforcing the forfeiture law have found that once the program is up and running, it is neither costly nor cumbersome. However, support from the District Attorney is crucial, and in its absence, neither impoundment nor forfeiture will succeed.

Contact Person and Information
Officer David Whitham
Santa Barbara Police Department
215 Figueroa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-897-2342
Email: dwhitham@sbpd.com

Officer Whitham has hands-on knowledge of this strategy and can provide detailed information on how to implement and operate it.