December 3, 2011
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:
On November 16, 2010 my son Drew, a 25 year old 2nd year law student, was killed by an unlicensed driver in San Francisco. On June 14, 2010, Roberto Galo was caught driving the wrong way down a one way street, driving without a license and driving without insurance. He was arrested and his car was impounded. Less than 24 hours later he had his car back and continued to drive it until he "murdered" my son. On July 27, 2010 he was allowed to plead to the lesser offense of driving the wrong way down a one way street and his driving without a license charge and driving without insurance charges were dropped. At that time he had already been driving again for over 45 days.
My son was driving home from law school. Galo, made a last second left hand turn, without his blinker, trying to beat the changing light. He collided with my son who was on his motorcycle. As they were both going slowly (and Galo was at a complete stop before he made his last second turn) my son probably survived the collision. The medical examiner said he had no head injuries. Instead of stopping Galo accelerated and his right front tire drove over my son’s abdomen. When he couldn’t continue forward because my son’s body and his bike blocked his way he backed up driving over his body a second time. Continuing his attempt to flee he then went forward again driving over him a third time only stopping because a brave citizen had gotten out of his car and stood in front of Galo’s car stopping his progress. Unfortunately, he stopped with his right tire on my son’s abdomen. Five men had to lift the car off his body. My son’s death was only one last year of the hundreds caused by unlicensed drivers in California every year.
How dare you even discuss making it easier and cheaper for unlicensed drivers to continue to break the law. Since when does the "community" get to decide what laws they will obey? Since when do you have the authority to ignore the law? The law is very clear. I suggest you, your staff and Chief Beck read it.
Your spokesperson, Peter Sanders was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on November 23 as saying, "We’re going to balance the needs of the community and the desires of the community versus public safety which is paramount". As unlicensed drivers are 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident, 5 times more likely to drive drunk and over 4 times more likely to flee (see above) even if you had the authority, which you do not, to ignore the law that should end the discussion right there.
Furthermore, the reason that the unlicensed drivers want to be able to drive is to leave the "community". After all if they stayed in the "community" they wouldn’t need to drive. How do you propose to keep them out of my community and all of the other communities in California who oppose unlicensed drivers from driving?
Your "new policy" besides being illegal and unsafe is also irrational and illogical. Besides the hundreds of deaths caused every year by unlicensed drivers there are thousands of people injured and hundreds of millions of dollars in repair costs which are rarely covered by the unlicensed driver since they rarely have any insurance and when they do it’s practically worthless. Whenever traffic laws are not obeyed enforcement and fines are increased. Your proposal does just the opposite. Are the deaths, injuries and costs not sufficient? This proposed policy is not only irresponsible but criminal. You will be aiding and abetting criminal activity that you know will result in more deaths and injuries and additional loss of and destruction of property. There are no needs and desires of the "community", particularly people who are already violating the law just by being here, that even justifies this policy being discussed.
Assistant Chief Mike Moore does a nice job of "spinning" the court decision regarding the "community caretaking doctrine" trying to make it look like your proposed policy would be in line with the court’s ruling. The court was challenged that the act of impoundment was unconstitutional and violated due process. Their decision allows the impoundment, period. The law assumes, and rightfully so, based on the irrefutable statistics that driving without a license is a threat to public safety. There are very few exceptions that allow a car not to be impounded and the "needs and the desires of the community" is certainly not one of them.
Lt. Andy Neiman said, "Our intention is to uphold the laws and do our best to insure to address public concerns while still ensuring public safety." Nice statement but pure bull shit. If you uphold the law, which you are constitutionally obligated to do you cannot address the public ("community") concerns which is the desire to be able to drive regardless of the fact that they don’t have licenses….while still ensuring public safety. Regardless of the law please explain to me how you ensure public safety by allowing and empowering unlicensed drivers to drive in light of their horrendous driving records? Chief Beck made a statement in March when he announced that the police would stop impounding cars that, "This will make the roads safer". That statement should have resulted in you immediately terminating him. That statement was a blatant lie and so stupid that either reason certainly disqualified him as being the Chief of Police of Los Angeles.
In 2009 Chief Bratton announced that he was going to stop impounding cards of unlicensed drivers. In less than a week you overruled him. What has changed? Excuse me for being so cynical but could it be that in 2013 you will be running for a new office? We just saw Gil (One "Kill" Gil) Cedillo champion AB 353 which will stop the impoundment of cars of unlicensed drivers caught at sobriety checkpoints. Low and behold a week after Governor Brown signed the bill (a bill I might add that I will be challenging either in court or through the initiative process) he announced his 2013 run for city council. Could you pander anymore than you did to La Opinion last week with your statement that "we should honor our history by welcoming people and bring {the undocumented} out of the shadows." How about honoring the rule of law which not only states that if you are here illegally you can’t get a license and therefore you can’t drive and which also has established guidelines for entering this country legally.
My wife and I testified in Sacramento against Senator Allen and Assemblyman Cedillo’s bill. Cedillo told a series of lies and half truths all of which I have researched. I have asked his chief of staff to produce evidence backing up Cedillo’s claims but of course he has never responded because he can’t. I now see the National Lawyers Guild and the Southern California Immigration Coalition have issued a report accusing the Police Department of due process violations, racial profiling and using pretextual stops to target immigrant drivers. I haven’t seen the report so I can’t comment on it. However, even if the report is true the solution is to make sure the Police Department (another reason to fire Beck?) follows the law, not allow illegal immigrants to break the law. We’ve just seen the report that some guards in county jails are abusing prisoners. Is the solution to stop arresting and jailing criminals?
By now I am sure that you have labeled me a right-wing racist bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a life-long liberal who has never shied away from claiming to be a liberal. I supported the Dream Act. I support a process to legitimize many illegal immigrants and provide a path to citizenship for others. I even support allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. But I am also a grieving parent who has lost his son because the state has refused to enforce the law, the DMV refuses to enforce the law, the city of San Francisco refuses to enforce the law and now the City of Los Angeles wants to join this illustrious club. I don’t really give a dam what nationality the driver who killed my son is. All I know is that had the law been followed he would be alive today.
Sincerely,
Don Rosenberg
BTW, I wrote Peter Sanders last week requesting notification when the next meeting for community input and Police Commission review will be. Needless to say I have not had any response.
---
Ellen & Don Rosenberg
December 17, 2011
So let me see if I understand. The police chief wants to ignore the law so people who entered the country illegally can illegally drive to get to a job where they illegally work. And some of you support the idea but are concerned that the department could open itself to claims of unequal treatment, since the amount of time an officer allows for a substitute driver to arrive will vary depending on how much time the officer can spare. What am I missing here? That’s what concerns you?
How about showing some concern for the tens of thousands each year who are in an accident and have to pay for the damages because the driver either doesn’t have insurance or if they do it’s usually worthless. How about some concern for the thousands who are injured or seriously injured because of unlicensed drivers and again have to bear the medical costs. Or how about the hundreds who are killed each year because of unlicensed drivers. How about showing some concern that more people will die if you let this policy take effect.
Unfortunately, I know a lot about one of the hundreds that are killed each year. My 25 year old son Drew, a second year law student, was killed on November 16, 2010 in San Francisco by an unlicensed driver. The driver, Roberto Galo, was caught on June 14, 2010 driving the wrong way down a one way street, driving without a license and driving without insurance. He was arrested and his car was impounded. Galo owned his car and had been driving without a license for at least three years. Less than 24 hours later he got his car out of impound and was driving again. On July 27, 2010 the district attorney allowed him to plea to the lesser charge of driving the wrong way down a one way street and dropped the driving without a license and the driving without insurance charges. Galo had already been driving again for 45 days.
My son was coming home from law school on his motorcycle when Galo who was stopped at a light hastily made a left hand turn without signaling. Eyewitness testimony said that Galo was going about 20 MPH and my son 10 MPH. (It was 5:30 PM at rush hour on a busy street.) When Galo collided with my son he probably didn’t kill him. Instead of stopping he accelerated running over my son’s abdomen with his front tire. When my son’s body and his bike stopped his forward progress he went in reverse driving over his abdomen a second time. He then tried to go forward again in an attempt to flee. A brave citizen who had gotten out of his car risked his life by standing in front of Galo’s car with his hands up signaling him to stop. Although at that point my son was probably already dead Galo stopped with his car’s front tire resting on my son’s body. Five men had to lift the car off of him.
Since that time I have been doing extensive research into the problem of unlicensed drivers. As police commissioners I would assume that you are aware of some of the facts about unlicensed drivers however, the fact that you would even consider this insane proposal can only be that you are not aware or acting purely under political pressure. So let me educate you. In California there are over 1 million unlicensed drivers. That is people who have never been issued a license and does not include those whose licenses are suspended or revoked. Unlicensed drivers are 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. They are 5 times more likely to drive drunk and they are 4 times more likely to attempt to flee (see above and later below). Unlicensed drivers in California represent between 4-5% of all drivers yet they are involved in over 20% of all fatal accidents. These statistics (other than the 1 million unlicensed drivers) are provided by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. They were first reported in a study in 1998, again in 2005 and are consistent with their third study that hasn’t been released as yet. I have been given some advance information and over the past 5 year period the numbers haven’t changed. These numbers had been growing until the car impoundment law went into effect. Although they haven’t decreased they have stabilized. Stop impounding cars and I am sure they will begin to increase again.
I’m not sure if you saw the recommendations issued this week by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). They are recommending that in car cell phone use be completely banned because distracted drivers kill 3,000 people nationally every year. Unlicensed drivers kill over 8,000 every year.
Although, I could give you many stories of the death and destruction caused by unlicensed drivers let me give you one more. This past August in Santa Rosa 4 year old Christopher Rowe was walking across the street with his 4 year old twin sister, his mother and his 6 year old sister. Marcos Lopez Garcia, 22, hit Christopher and dragged him down the street killing him. He had previously been caught driving twice without a license the last time 5 days before killing Christopher. His car was not impounded. The police officer who caught him the prior time said, "I told him not to drive". Garcia fled the scene but fortunately a man spotted the car a mile from the scene and called the police.
In light of this information any rational clear thinking person would conclude one or all of the following options:
1. Increase enforcement in trying to catch unlicensed drivers
2. Increase the penalties when an unlicensed driver is caught
3. Allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses
4. All of the above
Chief Beck’s solution is irrational, illogical, illegal and willfully criminally negligent. More people will die, more people will be critically injured, more accidents will occur. Your concern should center on the unlikely provision that your E & O insurance covers you for willful criminal negligence.
Sincerely,
Don Rosenberg
