Legality of a Vehicle Impound on Private Storage Property

Attorney Answer

Being on private property does not automatically make the tow unlawful — but it is a real argument, and it goes to the tow rather than to the stop. California authorizes an officer to remove a vehicle only in specifically enumerated circumstances, and the impound must separately be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Until you make the agency state which ground it actually relied on, no one can tell you whether this particular tow was proper — and you have 10 days from the date on the impound notice to force that question.

Cal. Veh. Code § 22651 is written as an enumerated list of situations in which a peace officer or authorized employee may remove a vehicle. It is not a general grant of authority. That the stop happened partly inside a private gate does not itself tell you which ground was invoked, or whether it fit.

Your instinct that the private property matters is worth more than you may think — but it attaches to the tow, not to the stop. An impoundment is itself a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the fact that a statute authorizes it does not by itself make it reasonable. In Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005), which is binding law in California, the Ninth Circuit held that "probable cause to believe that there had been a traffic infraction or non-criminal violation was insufficient to justify an impoundment of a vehicle parked in the owner's driveway, in the absence of a valid caretaking purpose." The court drew the line expressly: probable cause of a traffic violation is enough to justify stopping the car, but "the impoundment of a legally-parked vehicle is not necessary to enforce traffic regulations and requires some additional justification, as is typically demonstrated by the community caretaking purpose." That purpose ordinarily means the vehicle is impeding traffic, creating a hazard, at risk of theft or vandalism, or would otherwise keep being driven unlawfully. So the fact that the car was sitting inside a storage facility rather than on the roadway goes directly to whether any caretaking justification existed.

The same authority cuts against the other half of your question. Because probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred is itself sufficient to justify the stop, the argument that officers could have pulled him over earlier on the road is the weaker of your two points — officers are not generally required to make a stop at the first opportunity. Private property is also not an automatic shield: Miranda notes that impounding a car from a private parking lot has been upheld where the purpose was to protect it from theft or vandalism, and Veh. Code § 22651(p) expressly reaches a vehicle removed "from private property after having been on a highway or public land" where the driver is cited for driving unlicensed or on a suspended license. The real question is therefore not simply where the car was, but whether the agency had both an enumerated statutory ground and a genuine caretaking reason to take a car that was already off the road.

Because you do not yet know which subdivision was relied on, the productive next step is not speculating about the constitutional issue — it is making the agency state its actual basis. California provides a formal mechanism for that: a post-storage hearing to determine whether the storage was valid (Cal. Veh. Code § 22852). At that hearing the agency has to identify and defend the ground it relied on, which will also tell you whether the private-property timing point is even relevant.

There is a hard 10-day window on the hearing. Veh. Code § 22852(b)(4) requires the storage notice to state that, to receive a post-storage hearing, the owners or their agents "shall request the hearing in person, writing, or by telephone within 10 days of the date appearing on the notice." That is 10 days from the date printed on the notice — not from the day the car was towed or the day you happened to receive the notice — and storage fees accrue the entire time. Once you request it, § 22852(c) requires the hearing to be held within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. Note also that the right belongs to the registered and legal owners of record or their agents under § 22852(a), so if the car is registered to you rather than to your fiance, you are the one who should make the request.

The hearing is also worth more than an explanation. Under Veh. Code § 22852(e), if it is determined at the post-storage hearing that reasonable grounds for the storage were not established, the agency employing the person who directed the storage is responsible for the towing and storage costs.

What you can do

1. Locate the impound notice and the date printed on it, since the 10-day clock runs from that date. 2. Request the post-storage hearing in writing within 10 days, and ask the storing agency to identify which subdivision of § 22651 it relied on. 3. At the hearing, ask specifically what community caretaking purpose justified removing a vehicle that was already off the roadway and inside a storage facility — under Miranda that is the question the agency has to answer, and under § 22852(e) the agency bears the towing and storage costs if reasonable grounds are not established. 4. Gather evidence about the stop and the tow — video, photos of the facility gate and entrance, and accounts from anyone who saw where the vehicle was when officers made contact. 5. Request the police or incident report describing the basis for both the stop and the tow. 6. Consult a California criminal defense or civil rights attorney to evaluate the tow's validity and, separately, whether the stop itself raises a Fourth Amendment issue.