Halajian v. D & B Towing
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Halajian sued a towing company for 38 days of impoundment and $1,385 in fees for his unlicensed, unregistered 1998 Dodge light truck.
- Sheriff’s department impounded the truck under Vehicle Code authority, with the towing company acting as storage and release agent.
- Plaintiff alleged Fourth Amendment seizure, right to travel, due process, and misapplication of the Vehicle Code.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, ruling the impoundment and release were lawful under California law.
- Plaintiff appealed contending the impoundment violated rights and misapplied licensing/registration provisions.
- The appellate court held the impoundment did not violate rights and the demurrer was proper, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the impounding was wrongful for conversion. | Halajian argues the seizure violated travel rights, due process, and Fourth Amendment. | Towing Company asserts impoundment was authorized by Vehicle Code and community caretaking; no wrongful possession. | No; impoundment was not wrongful under law. |
| Whether right to travel invalidated the impoundment. | Travel rights exempt only unlicensed/unregistered use; truck was noncommercial. | Right to travel is not absolute; licensing/registration may be reasonably required. | Licensing/registration are reasonable; travel right not violated. |
| Whether Fourth Amendment seizure was unreasonable under community caretaking. | Seizure lacked necessity and violated Fourth Amendment. | Caretaking doctrine justified impoundment to protect safety and property. | Impo undment reasonable under community caretaking. |
| Whether Vehicle Code was misapplied to noncommercial travel. | Truck not a driver for hire; Vehicle Code misapplied. | Truck constitutes a vehicle; driver/vehicle definitions apply irrespective of commercial use. | Vehicle Code provisions applied; no misapplication. |
| Whether due process rights were violated by lack of notice/hearing. | No due process violation found (implied). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141 (Cal.App.3d 1979) (right to travel and reasonableness of burdens on travel rights in California)
- City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) (community caretaking doctrine and impoundment considerations)
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 1995) (travel rights not absolute; reasonable restrictions allowed)
- Rumford v. City of Berkeley, 31 Cal.3d 545 (Cal. 1982) (highways use as a common right with reasonable regulations)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (travel rights can be reasonably burdened for public interests)
- United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) (recognition of right to travel)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (substantive travel-right protections)