X hits on this document

Word document

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT - page 19 / 29

84 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 29

as introduced Feb. 20, 2003, p. 2 [analysis issued April 28, 2003].)  

The legislative history shows that in 2003, the Legislature had before it a review of all relevant towing regulations as well as a discussion of the need to protect the safety-related authority of the State of California from preemption by federal law, but when presented with the opportunity to clarify which provisions of section 22658 were designed to further a public safety purpose, it did not include subdivision (i) within that statement of intent.  Under the circumstances, we cannot say the Legislature considered subdivision (i) of section 22658 "genuinely responsive to public safety concerns" (City of Columbus, supra, 536 U.S. at p. 442) so as to fall within the safety exception of the FAAAA.

In reaching this conclusion, we disagree with Servantes to the extent it may suggest that all of section 22658's subdivisions fall within the ambit of the FAAAA's safety exception.  (Servantes, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092 [finding a public safety purpose in the "protections . . . section 22658 offers to the owner of a vehicle"].)  While Servantes mentioned subdivision (i) of section 22658 in its overview of the regulatory scheme (Servantes, at p. 1084), it did not explain whether or how that particular provision furthers a safety purpose.  Further, Servantes was decided before the Legislature's addition of subdivision (m) of section 22658, which carved out subdivisions (k) and (l) in its statement of legislative intent.  Like the Ninth Circuit did in Tillison, supra, 406 F.3d 1126, we find it appropriate to analyze each provision independently in our preemption analysis.    

2.  The Nonconsensual Towing Exception (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(C))

19

Document info
Document views84
Page views84
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 08:56:49 UTC 2016
Pages29
Paragraphs130
Words7802

Comments