vehicle does not create any need for the police to protect the vehicle or to avoid a hazard to other
drivers.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, as the majority
recognizes, the fact that a car would be left unattended does not justify impoundment unless the car
would be parked illegally. Slip op. at 9. Here, defendant’s car was parked in a residential area four
blocks from her home and was not blocking traffic or a driveway. Slip op. at 3. The majority states
that, because defendant did not have proof of insurance, her car was tantamount to a disabled vehicle
because it could not be operated until proof of insurance was shown. Slip op. at 12. However, it
does not logically follow that the car could not remain legally parked without proof of insurance. In
other words, the legally parked car was not in any sense jeopardizing public safety or impeding the
efficient movement of traf ic, so its impoundment cannot be justified as a street caretaking function.
Accordingly, I would hold that the vehicle’s impoundment was unreasonable, and I would affirm the
trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to suppress.