Cool. Then that's one thing they won't have to worry about; one down, 6 or 7 to go. Odd, though, that when asked, that was not revealed to me. Any other rabbits up your sleeve that could shed light on this?

Maybe you could get a copy of the ordinance, because there is one.

Munch--Actually, that would be the first step. Sections of the Wisconsin Statutes state that only the governing body of a community can generate revenue in this type of situation. So, the first thing that would have to happen is that the Town Board--not the Chief--would have to pass an ordinance to allow for this. Loosely speaking--in fact, very loosely, it's kind of a 'taxation w/o representation' issue if an entitiy other than the elected representatives start taking money from people. (I'm only using this as an analogy, not necessarily a legal argument). But, a few sentences later in the statutes, it further states that the revenue generated has to be "reasonably related" to the costs sought to be offset. This is the next place where the current scheme fails. Waiting 1/2 hour for a tow, and charging $100, suggests that an officer's time while waiting is worth $200/hr. Then, to make matters even MORE unreasonable, section 10.4 of the current Order authorizes multiple $100 fees for each offense, even though there is only one tow. That is COMPLETELY unreasonable. Unfortunately, none of this addresses what I consider to be a real 'public policy' issue with this, and that is if this were to be allowed, why couldn't the town start passing ordinances to allow a fee for every traffic accident investigated? What if I call the police to report that my child is a runaway, and she's done so 3 times already, so they start imposing a $50 fee every time I call to report her missing. For that matter, why not charge $25 for every traffic stop? See where this could lead? Make sense?

Professor - are you saying that if the town passes an ordinance it is legal, in your opinion?

Bingo crafty! Why do they have to wait? So they can justify the administrative fee. Why can't they secure the car if it's legally parked then give the driver a ride to a pay phone or jail or wherever and say, "Have a nice day"?

No matter what the outcome, I believe that in the long run, policies such as this tend to hurt more than help the police in general, especially the smaller departments. They don't have to be a "warm and fuzzy" department, but when the public perception becomes such that it appears the aim is to generate revenue and punish rather than gain compliance and make the community safer, the publics' indifference at best and contempt as worse will have far reaching consequences

I know Prof, it's just frustrating. I've been affected by it myself and I get so irritated at the level of incompetence of some people. Seeing things like this just makes me wonder how many morons we've got elsewhere in the government that make such poor decisions.

All they have to do is call a licensed driver. If they have time to wait for a tow truck, they can wait a while for a driver. Why do they have to wait anyway?
No one thinks they should tow it for free! Hello? They shouldn't tow it at all. Unless it's in a dangerous place, or in the way.
This policy is just mean!

Here, here, Paisley!

Quite honestly, whether it turns out to be legal or not, it's an asinine policy. They already stick the person with the fines, which is what they are for. Stacking 'punishment' fees immediately to an offender is just wrong, and again, they have no place 'punishing' anyone until the court says so.

I think some of the people that are saying things like 'just pay your fines', etc. are having a hard time putting themselves in someone else's shoes, in that situation. For some people it's not as easy as for others when it comes to the financial end of it. There will always be the people that work the $8/hour jobs that have a lot harder time supporting a family much less making a lousy mistake and being stuck with overbearing consequences.

Interesting. But without more details, one can't really determine what actually happened. Do you have more? And, as you know, it is the appellate court rulings that actually decide what is law. Here's the interesting thing though, Munch: NO ONE that seems to be defending the town's position has put up ANY legal theory to show me why I'm wrong. I've said from the start--well, almost from the start--of these blogs that if I'm shown the legal arguments from the other side, such that I am just flat out wrong, I'd be the first to apologize. So far, I've had no takers. In the end, there may very well be a judge who, on the merits of that particular case, decides in favor of the town. We'll see.

Professor - just for info - a case has gone to the circuit court and the vehicle was ordered returned to the defendant AFTER all fees were paid to the town and the tow company. It seems there are attorneys and judges who don't think this policy is illegal.

Spec1--Good question, as I'm almost certain that suspended plates was NOT one of the ten offenses that the Gen. Order required that the fee be imposed. Wow; that sentence was written goodly. In other words, the Order listed 10 offenses for which the fee could be imposed; I'm almost 100% certain that suspended plates was not one of those ten. (Sorry, but I left my copy of the General Order at home). So, either someone misunderstood the order, and confused suspended drivers license (which IS one of the ten) with suspended license plates. In the end, though, I don't think they care if it's legal; it's apparent that what they care about is the money. Nearly $40,000 just from the administrative fee; that's nearly two tows per day--I bet no other community of comparable size comes anywhere near that number. I'll double check the Order when I get home to make sure I've told you the correct information.

copper and prof: You are saying that my vehicle could have been towed, but that I shouldn't have had to pay the fee??? If this is the case then why did I have to pay and NOT have to show proof of registration when doing so? Just to clarify: my plates were SUSPENDED for FPF...not just unregistered!

And THAT is the problem.

"Town of Beloit Police Chief John Wilson declined to comment. Previously, he told the Gazette the administrative fee is proof that the town takes traffic violations seriously and punishes violators thoroughly."

I guess the Chief believes they should be handing out punishment.

I think the thrust of what is being argued is that folks see the tow policy as additional punishment. In fact, many comments in support of the policy are saying just that: "If you drive without a valid license, you should have your vehicle towed." That seems to buttress the position that the tow policy is a form of punishment. As such, I do not find any basis in the statutes for towing as punishment or penalty.

Those opposed to the policy seem to be saying "let the punishment fit the offense." Those in favor of it seem to be saying, "If you commit an offense, you deserve whatever punishment you get." Yet, punishment is the domain of courts, not police officers.

Here's a crazy idea that just might work: Don't drive if you don't have a license.

Instead of taking the 'holier than thou' stance, try understanding that this is NOT about any particular driver. It's about a policy, with the force of law behind it, that is illegal. If you expect the drivers to follow the law, why won't you expect the same from those who govern? Check out LikesIke's comment way down the list. Nobody here is saying that the drivers shouldn't be held accountable if they did something wrong. All that is being said is that the same is true for those in authority.

Cry me a river! If you drive without a licence, you should have your car taken away, It's just sad that the town of beloit has to act as this person's parent and keep them from driving illegaly. stop whining and pay your fines!

meanbloggers - you are so right.

aussie - you probably should check with the court before you make blanket statements like that.

I want to clarify one point. This story is about a TOWN OF BELOIT policy, not City of Beloit. There is a difference.

75% of these posts are fictional "story" flames.

If Tammy's license was valid then she wouldn't be crying because they may sell her car. If you get a ticket and don't pay it what are the cops to do? Look the other way and say "oh thats ok we know that some day are some year you will pay it." If you don't like the towing policy then get involved in politics and get the policy changed. Or maybe don't give the cops any reason to have to have your car towed.

It is well known Beloit township (through-out the state!) has had several laws in question. I know a lawyer from the area that almost makes a living defending the rights of people in that one room mop bucket. He very rarely wins in the kangaroo court procedings, but has had some sucsess in appeals, when it is taken to the state level. That of coarse if you can afford to fight there nickle and dime fines. "administrative charges"

They tow her van Jan. 4th, and give her until Jan. 28th? What is up with that? What if your car is worth ten thousand dollars? Are they just gonna sell it?
Chief John Wilson couldn't comment, big surprise!
While these police officers are forced to wait for a tow truck, some punk is selling all kinds of drugs all over town. Wake up chief!

If you know you're not going to get your car back, throw some sand in the motor so the jerk at the towing company can't make a free buck off your loss.
When you get pulled over and know their gonna tow it, turn your wheel all the way to the right. Set the parking brake, lock the doors. But you know they're just gonna break it and charge you more.
So what do we do? Get this ridiculous policy changed!

I understand now. At least in Janesville the option is available. I would much rather have the officer put my vehicle in a legal spot than force me to tow it. In Janesville, people probably don't realize the tax-dollars paying for the tow and just want to be stubborn, not letting the officer move the vehicle.

paisley - check it out - if a driver refuses to allow an officer in the City of Janesville to move the vehicle it is towed and the city pays the tow, so that means tax dollars.

fldpan, Although a parking log may be a legal parking area and no hazard, I don't think their policy would allow for it. When I was stopped, I was off the roadway by a good 5-6 feet, well over onto the shoulder of the road. They are pretty much gonna tow it no matter where you put it. They just aren't giving people ANY leeway whatsoever. However, I like the idea that copper posted earlier about how the officer pulls you over into a spot where you would not normally be putting your vehicle. I think that may make a good case.

Paully71: By the time she's done paying for her illegally towed vehicle she won't have any money to pay her fines! Then guess what, she will be suspended again for FPF(failure to pay fine) but she'll continue to drive because she has to get to work so she can feed her family and pay her fines.(You can't get an occupational license if your suspended for FPF). Then there will be an officer who runs her plate(for no other reason than boredom) and from the information on the DOT response will run a check on the registered owner and discover that her license is suspended or revoked. The officer will stop her vehicle to see if she's driving it(how this is legal I have no idea) If she is driving she'll be cited again for OWS/OAR and the whole vicious cycle will continue.

Ok...I have it in my hand. It is General Order #49. So, it is not an ordinance passed by the town, which is a problem for them. And, it specifically does call for an administrative fee for each offense--section 10.4 of the Order. And, it does list the ten offenses that an administrative fee will be charged for. Munch you were right on that one; unregistered vehicle is not listed, though it is something they can tow for--just not charge, according to the Order. Oh, and one final thing. Don't ask me how I was able to find this out, but Tammy's license is SUSPENDED, not revoked.

munchkin - Last I was aware, Janesville officers will move the vehicle to a legal parking spot, say on a side street. Of course, they do this with the owner's consent. I think this was mentioned in the Gazette's last article regarding this situation. Is this no longer the case?

Either way, back to the point of the whole issue, towing just isn't necessary when a driver can provide different means for getting the vehicle moved immediately or at least within a timely fashion. I wouldn't be surprised at the people that end up in Tammy's situation. People make mistakes and live with them, but it doesn't need to be pounded down their throat, especially when they can't even come up with the money to get their vehicle back. Fines are great, and you pay for what you've done. However, the IMMEDIATE 'penalty' can cause people problems that aren't necessary to cause, such as losing a job, not being able to pick up a child from daycare, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't realize the hardships caused by things like this until they end up in the situation. Granted, the law is still broken, but no need for harsh penalties like this.

I'm just going to throw this out - who do you think pays for tows in the City of Janesville. It's paid with your tax dollars. I am tired of my taxes going up. Shouldn't we all be responsible for our own actions and not leaving it up to someone else to cover for us.

munchkin: I noted earlier that her driver's license was most certainly not revoked for FPF. Indeed, there must be more to the story. So I am automatically a bit skeptical there.

Please take a look at the earlier post from employspec1. That's the one who spoke of the car being towed for suspended plates (a/k/a non-registration). That is a false report also?

At any rate, I would hope that the Gazette at least vetted the story enough that the following quote is actually in the policy: "officers will not leave the vehicle where stopped, call the vehicle owner or wait for a licensed driver to arrive. Vehicle will be towed immediately."

On closer inspection, that statement does not necessarily preclude an on-scene valid driver from removing the vehicle. All it does is prohibit the officer from WAITING for a licensed driver." If officers are interpreting it to mean an on-scene valid driver cannot remove the vehicle, them maybe it's a training issue.
I do still wonder about the lawfulness of the policy. This is especially true given Judge Alisankus' comments in an earlier article.

copper: the policy is very specific as to when vehicles are towed and it does not include unregistered vehicles. You noted in this case "it seems a valid driver was prepared to drive the vehicle away" - maybe get a copy of the citation and note the discrepancy in how the driver chooses to report what happened or talk to the officer who was at the scene.

Professor: I concur with your analysis. Did from the beginning. I pointed out the impound vs. tow distinction for clarity. Point I wanted to make is that while some folks are quick to take up an argument based on perceived precedent, they sometimes end up comparing apples to oranges. TOTC at work.

I'm curious about your statement because it's along the lines of an earlier post. You mention that they are "multiple administrative fees for one tow," and an earlier post referenced multiple administrative fee charges based on number of citations issued. Is that really occurring, or speculation?
Munchkin: Your post is well taken. I have a couple of questions. First, a previous poster mentioned their vehcile was towed specifically for suspended registration. You mention the policy isn't for unregistered vehicles. Is the policy really that specific that it differentiates between bases of non-registration? Or was the previous post incorrect? There obviously would be a problem leaving an unoccupied vehicle in a place that is marked No Parking, or that would obstruct traffic. In this case, though, it seems a valid driver was prepared to drive the vehicle away but prevented from doing so by the officer. Does the policy prevent such an occurrence?

Munch: For the moment, let's assume you are right about the actual policy. The only difference that it makes is that--if it is as you say--than it might not be unconstitutional 'on its face'; but, it certainly would be 'as applied'. But this only speaks to reasons for the tow. The other area where this policy fails miserably is the charging. Let's assume that it is ok to charge (I strongly doubt it for reasons I may talk about later, but for now...), then you have to ask if it is ok to charge for this type of police activity, can it be extended to the time an officer spends investigating a traffic accident? Or, if a person's home stereo is too loud? Or, for that matter, every traffic stop that is made? Then, we can talk about what is a "reasonable" fee. I'd LOVE to see the Town try to justify multiple administrative fees for one tow--which is what they are doing.

You do raise a good point, though. Is this a 'policy' or did the town actually adopt this as an ordinance. If it is the latter, then that is one thing they did right. I will check; thanks for the tip!

Have any of you gotten a copy of the town's policy. This policy was written by the town board not the police chief nor the police department. Also in the policy there are specific traffic offenses that vehicles are towed for. And it's not for parking "5 inches over the sidewalk" nor is it for unregistered vehicles. There seems to be some stretching of the truth about towing away from in front of your home. And professor: "speedy removal" is subject. FYI - South Beloit is currently looking at implementing the same policy. Maybe some checking should be done as to the accuracy of some of the information in the recent article.

CuGuy: You are welcome. I didn't want to get too deep into the legal analysis, but the distinction between an "impoundment" and a "tow" isn't something to worry about. Here's why, and tell me if you agree. The legal issue is this: The 4th amendment treats this as a constitutional 'seizure'. Whether you are speaking about a person (arrest or temporary detention) or a thing--such as a car, you must have a LAWFUL reason justifying the seizure. The Town 'policy' doesn't allow for this, nor do they allow an opportunity for quick removal. So, regardless of what they do with the car afterwards, (i.e. 'impound' for evidence, or to search, or simply have it 'towed' away), the analysis first starts--and fails for the Town--at the moment the car is seized. Make sense?

The Town would be well advised to change this a.s.a.p. An attorney/or a private citizen that takes this case to court will no doubt subpoena each officer of the dept. for discovery. There, they will learn that the tow policy is pushed on the officers--at least if the officer I talked to personally is telling the truth. And, I should tell you, most of the officers there, according to my source, also think this policy is wrong. Any money the Town has made will quickly be eaten up by attorney's fees to defend this. And, mark my words--the Town will lose. At least that's how I see it. Some people say I'm arrogant; my sister replies that I'm not arrogant, just convinced!

Professor: I read Duguay. Interesting. I do note that there is a distinction between impounding a vehicle vs. having it towed to a tow operator's lot. In fact, though, I think that distinction weakens the Town's position in light of Duguay. We are not talking about impoundment here, as they were in Duguay.

Duguay seems to be in line with the procedures (if not policies) of the other departments I know of...if you have a legal driver and the driver/owner consents to that person driving the vehicle, do not tow.

Thanks for the research, Professor!

This policy is completely unlawful. I was in this same situation about a month and a half ago. I got my first DUI ever and learned my lesson right off the bat. I have no problem taking the responsibility for drinking and driving. However, when the officer forced me to have my vehicle towed, we waited almost an hour for a tow truck to arrive. I could have had a family member there to get my vehicle withing 5 minutes. Anyhow, I asked the officer why he could leave a broken down vehicle on the side of the road and not my truck, he specifically stated "Well they aren't really being punished." If punishment is the case, that's a violation of the 5th amendment and a person's right to a fair trial. You can't impose a penalty without due process of law. That's like imposing a death penalty on a murder suspect without a court trial.

Professor mentioned earlier about people not having enough money to afford an attorney to fight them back. Well, personally I do. I plan to fight it to the max if for nothing more than the principal. The Town of Beloit is the only local municipality carrying such an asinine policy. It's unlawful and someone needs to bring it to a stop. Maybe now with getting enough publicity, more people and attorneys will get involved and make some changes.

Hey, not if this matters but if you check Winnebago court records she hasn't paid for fine she got down there in April. She probably will not pay for ones she just got either.

BTPD did the same thing to me on the 18th...but a little differently. My sister had gotten a parking ticket with my car and I was unaware of it. The officer was pulled to the side of County D in the "S" curve just before Townline Rd. However, she was in the lane of traffic due to the snow, so I slowed to 30 MPH (posted speed is 55) to pass her safely on slick roads. This gave her the chance to run my plates and see that the DMV had suspended them. She pulled me over with two licensed drivers in my vehicle and still towed it due to the plates. She told me on the scene that she had verified a $75 tow fee with the driver, but when I had to go to South Beloit, ILLINOIS to pick up my car it was $125. The Town of Beloit did not verify that I had renewed my plates before releasing my car to me either! Whatever happened to officers providing the citizens with the correct information about legal procedures? This policy needs to be amended and/or done away with!!!!

Excellent question, Friendly...and the Gazette should look into that, to see if there was some sort of 'quid pro quo' agreement between the Town administrator and the Chief regarding budgets. Didn't the first article say that the Town hauled in $40 grand from tow fees (correct me if I'm wrong here.)? That would be about 500 tows, or almost 2/day. I can't believe that all of those had a 'legal basis'....

I was gonna save this for the Chief, but since you guys are working so hard on this, here's a nibble: The following is a quote from "U.S. v. Duguay", a 1996 case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (For those that don't know this, the next stop from that court is the U.S. Supreme Court; the 7th Circuit hears cases on federal constitutional law from events that happen in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin; and, unless overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, their rulings are BINDING on cops in all three of those states): "The decision to impound an automobile...is only valid if the arrestee is otherwise unable to provide for the speedy and efficient removal of the car from public thoroughfares or parking lots."

I thought they were getting a new PD? It would be interesting to know how much their police budget increased compared to increased revenue since Chief Wilson took over. It must be public record. Maybe the Gazette could look into that.

Tammy would have had roughly 30 days from the ticket issue date, in September, until her court date, then been eligible to ask for (and most likely have been granted) an extension. What caused Tammy's license to become Revoked in the mean time? We already know it's not from FPF. The bottom line is that Officer Bogdonas followed his department's policy (lawful or not) and could potentially have been disciplined if he hadn't. Until a court decides this policy is unlawful, it will continue. Don't drive through the Township if you're not a valid, careful, attentive, sober driver.

As for officerfriendly1's comment about the Beloit Township squads and equipment, I implore you to visit their PD. It's less than glamorous. Perhaps a ride along in one of their "fancy" squads as well.

You still there Copper?

All is quiet on the homefront too.

How do you think Beloit Twsp. PD pays for all that fancy equipment and squad cars?

I read that too, and quite frankly it makes me very glad that I was able to retire from law enforcement after 27 years of service.
Things change; and not necessarily for the better.

wisconsinheat: I look forward to that discussion when the right forum presents itself (as far a the "money making" goes). I recently read of a city (I think...maybe a village) that was considering charging motorists who "cause" traffic crashes for police response to those crashes! In fact, I think they actually budgeted for it!

And again, I am not condemning the township officers, they have to follow policy.

It's the chief who should be standing tall on this one.

From what I hear, he is a good guy and good chief, but I think on this one he has it wrong!

If it were my department's policy, I would follow it. Thankfully, it is not my department's policy. I believe it is unnecessarily harsh.

I don't think anyone is arguing the merits of the specific circumstances you are coming up with copper.

The point of contention here is the blanket policy that from every angle appears to be first and foremost a money making policy.

We are talking in addition to legal or illegal, right and wrong.

Do you think it is RIGHT for this policy to be in effect?

Let me say from the outset: I'm a cop, not a lawyer!
I've checked all areas of the statutes I could think to look for language enabling such a policy. I could not find anything.

I can come up with what may be the most persuasive argument for such a policy. If an officer commands a person to stop in a place he or she would not have otherwise, then ends up arresting that person with the vehicle to remain at the scene of the stop, then PERHAPS one could ATTEMPT some sort of bizarre liability argument to a jury because the subject did not choose the parking spot of their own volition?!?!?!?! Far-fetched jury shot? Yes. Extremely. But, who knows!

Perhaps that is why many departments and officers try to locate a valid driver...an attempt to provide some reasonable level of mitigation???????

This is wild speculation on my part. Sometimes one needs to think outside the box and he/she will find something he/she hadn't considered.

Of course, if the vehicle needs to be impounded for a search warrant, etc., then that is an entirely different thing. Keep in mind that if someone in the car is arrested for a CRIMINAL offense, then the courts have found it reasonable for the officer to search the passenger compartment incident to that lawful arrest. So there are differences in criminal versus non-criminal traffic cases, thus there may be something I have missed somewhere.

I think it would be helpful to everyone to have a court decision on this sort of question. I haven't searched decisions yet, so there may in fact be something.

The "law" aside, this is a department policy. If the citizens, administrator, and town board want to, they can change this policy pronto.
Perhaps instead of just looking at the legal aspect, they should also consider the potential costs to defend. But more importantly, the perception of the people. Not only the violators but the law abiding citizens as well.

This is a golden opportunity for the township to put "community policing" into action instead of just being a buzzword.

I think the dividends would be unbelievable.

professor: I agree with you...we all know how discussions can stray wildly from the topic at hand. I try to stay on topic, which is why I have addressed the policy question as tactfully as possible. I do try to clarify legal issues/questions/exaggerations/misstatements/etc..

wisconsinheat: I've read earlier stories on this, and I am familiar with the published comments from Judge Alisankus (sp?). At the risk of sounding like a politician (as I was accused in a different forum), I will point out that laws do change. Both legislative action and court decisions can modify what is or is not legal. So, without knowing the history as to when now-Judge Forbeck drafted the policy, I can say that it's possible it was legal then, but not now.

I do know and trust Judge Alisankus. I recall him being skeptical of this policy. I am personally reviewing statutes as I type this. What I have found so far is that a COURT may impound the vehicle of someone CONVICTED of OWR. That, of course, would be after a trial on an OWR charge, not subsequent to the stop.

I previously mentioned the way many deparments handle these situations. Many will try to find a legal driver, or even ask permission from the driver to move the car to a valid parking spot. I, personally, try everything I can think of to avoid a tow. My professional view is that it adds work for the department and cost for the violator, and is unnecessary. Having said that, you follow your department's rules.

Still researching. I will post if I find anything else pertinent in the statutes.

Heat's point is well taken, CuGuy....I hope this thread doesn't lose sight of the REAL issue here: The 'policy'.

I think the important part of this whole story is that a licensed driver was present, but the officer would not allow that person to drive the vehicle because she wasn't in the vehicle when it left the roadway. The licensed driver arrived before the officer completed the license check on the original driver and thus, was present before the start of enforcement of the administrative policy on towing.
Yes, this whole thing would have been avoided had the original driver been properly licensed, but since when did one wrong justify another?
If the purpose of the policy is to prevent vehicles from sitting on the side of the road, the sister driving the van would satisfy that aim. If the purpose of the policy is to generate revenue, then the officer would prevent anyone from driving the van and demand it be towed.

The town of Beloit is only interested in make money, it doesn't matter if a car is parked 5 inches over the sidewalk or your garbage cans can be seen from the road it's all about
"MONEY". I lived in Beloit for three years and it was the worse mistake I made. I won't even shop there anymore.

Copperguy; I realize that "As to the towing policy, the courts will ultimately decide on that." That's the point of the post concerning Judge Forbeck. You are correct in your observation that "The policy mentioned here seems a bit unusual," that is also our point; Unusual AND illegal. As some of the previous posts point out, the township could charge an "administrative towing fee" for a legally parked vehicle in front of the owners' own house.

Do you think this is fair, legal, or right?

There are a couple of points to make here.

First, as was mentioned previously, a driver's license is most certainly not revoked for failure to pay a forfeiture (FPF). It can be suspended for two years. Some courts suspend a license for FPF, some file a judgement, and some will issue a Commitment, which mandates the subject spend one day in jail for every certain dollar increment unpaid. If her license was truly revoked, it was not for FPF.

Second, operating while revoked (OWR) does not matriculate into a felony after any number of offenses. And, for accuracy's sake, I point out that the OWR law has become very convoluted.

Any OWR violation is a criminal traffic (misdemeanor) if the revocation was for OWI or certain other offenses, or if the person has had one or more STATE OWR violations in the past 5 years. The STATE part is an important distinction. I'll get to that in a moment. If it is a first offense OWR and unrelated to revocation for OWI, etc., then it can be written as either an ordinance or a STATE violation. Most departments write them as ordinances so the municipality actually gets the fine portion of the judgement.

Now, if a person has a prior OWR as an ordinance violation, that does not count as a first offense for determining if the second is a crime. Only prior STATE OWR offenses count as first offense OWR, according to the last letter I saw from DOT lawyers. So a driver may have any number of OWR ordinance violations but never be eligible for the 2nd offense criminal charge.

As to the towing policy, the courts will ultimately decide on that. The policy mentioned here seems a bit unusual, as most departments I know of will try to find a licensed driver to remove the vehicle if it's a hazard, or will tag it for 24/48 hours etc.. If it remains there after the time noted, then it is towed and/or impounded at owner's expense.

Oftenmisunderstood is right on the $$ - the Town of Beloit should be checking its reserves right now for lawsuit coverage. The sad truth is that any lawsuit costs will be paid for by the taxpayers - hello WISCONSIN!

Professor: You are absolutely correct about Mr. (Judge) Forbeck. I have known the man professionally for 29 years and his personal ethics, in my opinion, are beyond reproach.

The point I was trying to make was that all citizens should be concerned because if they had to appeal any part of this ordinance it could end up in front of Judge Forbeck.

I'm sure he would recuse himself under the circumstances, but what would the perception be of the poor schmuck (possibly me) on the low end of the totem pole in the judicial process?

Ken Forbeck is an honorable man (no pun intended!). First, we don't know what he was actually asked to 'approve'; so far, we only have the word of the same people whose Town benefits financially from this policy. In fact, we don't even know if his 'approval' was in writing, or if the question and answer were both verbal--and then, who knows what was said or meant. Having said that, if he is shown that he was wrong, I would be very surprised if he didn't own up to it. He's that kind of professional.

Section 343.44(1), of the Wisconsin Statutes, states that the license shall be revoked upon the 4th (or greater) driving while suspended. All driving while suspended cases, and the first driving while revoked case, can be ordinance only violations. It doesn't become criminal until the 2nd revocation conviction. And then, it is still only a misdemeanor. There is nothing that turns it into a felony.

Kudos to Heat and Often--they 'get it'. It's not about a driver. It's about what those in positions of authority are doing.

Still waiting for the Chief to show me where I'm wrong....

True, the policy had been written by the former town attorney who is now a judge. Let’s not forget the appeals process, judges decisions are appealed and have been overturned many times.

If the policy itself doesn't bother you, THIS SHOULD!

"The policy was written by former town attorney Ken Forbeck, who now is a Rock County Judge"

I watched this debate for some time and I too am against the Beloit Township’s policy. Frankly I feel it’s not lawful. The policy is not about making their roadways safer it’s about the Township making money, plain and simple.

What bothers me the most is that here they have a Chief who has decided on his own to add punishment to “certain” violators. It is the duty of the Police to enforce the law, not punish. Punishment is set by the courts not the Police. I wonder what happens if a person is found not guilty. Does the Beloit Township Chief then pay the tow charges?

The Chief had stated that this fee is an administrative fee, or a fee for making the Officer wait. If that’s the case then why do the offenders get charged for each citation they received? If the Beloit Township stops someone, gives them three citations and tows their vehicle then the offender must pay the “administrative / making the Officer wait” fee three times. Does it somehow magically take three times as long to get a tow in this situation?

For those who say she gets what she gets for breaking the law I disagree. She should get the punishment that the judicial commission has set forth in instructions to judges, not a Chief who is looking for ways to increase revenue. I have never lost my license. I have not received a citation for over 29 years but these dictator tactics bother me in that who is next on the Chief’s list? If we do not stand up for something that is wrong, even if it does not affect us, then who will stand up for us when we may need it?

I can only imagine somewhere there is a law firm watching this situation play out and when the money gets high enough, I predict a class action suit on behalf of those people who had their vehicles towed. I hope the township has kept reserves to handle this situation. When this happens don’t say you were not warned Beloit Township.

gazettereader: There's two points to this; most are addressing the boneheaded policy, not the individuals involved. The citations are up to the courts to decide. The boneheaded policies are up to the citizens to decide.

Why are so many defending this woman? The bottom line is that she was in the wrong. If it's a law, and you don't want to pay for it, DON'T do it. It doesn't matter how just or unjust the policy is.

That BINGO was for likesIke; fldpan snuk in there.

BINGO

There sure are a lot of self-righteous bloggers here, that are very pro 'law and order'. That's good. It should make it a lot easier when YOU fall from the lofty perch of being perfect, and end up in this same web. So, if you 'forget' to renew your driver's license, and get stopped, don't complain when your car is towed. Or, when you 'forget' to renew your plates, making it illegal to operate your car on the road, don't complain when your car is towed. How many of you know if your license plate light is operating? Because if it isn't, you can be legally stopped. And, when the officer decides one of your tires isn't 'street legal', don't complain when your car is towed. What, your kid forgot to tell you she got a parking ticket, and the DMV has suspended the plates on ALL of your cars because the parking ticket never got paid? Well, you can congratulate yourself on what a responsible citizen you are while thanking the tow truck driver who came to take your car. But above all, don't forget to brand yourselves a loser and a criminal for these TRAFFIC offenses, and to tell people that you dug your own hole. You folks are a hoot!

This is a classic example of a situation where the township p.d. blew a perfectly good opportunity to promote its' agenda as being citizen friendly as well as being against "crime" at the same time.

If the chief wants to be so hardnosed, then he should get the board to install cameras at every township intersection and ticket and tow every violator.

Think of the money you could save by eliminating the "middleman" (the officer).

What a joke.

If the town of Beloit doesn't realize what they are losing in the long run by such ridiculous policies, they will eventually.

The citizens will be so turned off by such heavy handed policies that they will not co-operate with the police when it counts the most.

Think about it.

Regardless of whether the policy is just or not? So if someone violates the law anything goes? Absolutely she should be cited for breaking the law, hmmm and so should the officer who struck the guard rail. This issue is all about whether the policy is "just or not", legal or not.

Regardless of whether the policy is just or not, Tammy would not be in this situation had she been obeying the law. She was speeding! She was driving too fast for conditions! If you end up in the ditch, you were driving to fast for the condition of the road. I read nothing about a deer or a coon,etc. And had she paid her fine from her earlier ticket...well enough said. She dug her own hole. It's time to take responsibility, Tammy. This is why we see so many young people pointing the finger at everyone these days. They see their parents blaming everyone else. People these days just need to step up and quit blaming others.

Why was this citizen cited for "too fast for conditions"? It doesn't sound like she even hit anything unlike the BT officer who hit the guard rail and wasn't cited. Also your license is only suspended for failure to pay a fine. There must be more to the story as to why Tammy's license was revoked.

Also, the roads where this happened, have no shoulder, curbs of parking spots. It is a country road with grass, or in this case snow, right up to the side of the asphalt. Either it is still in the snow, or it is in the middle of traffic.

Why did the Gazette try to paint Officer Mike Bogdonas as the bad guy. He was just doing his job, as was set to him by his boss. Maybe he should cut everyone that breaks the law a break, and get fired. He would only lose his pension, insurance and a way to feed his family.
After about 15 minutes the tow company was probably called, so that the vehicle would not be left in the ditch, and broken into or hit by another vehicle. Which the Township could have been found liable for. The someone would say that Mike was at fault for NOT calling a towing company. Didn't the City of Janesville Police Department get blamed for not towing a vehicle that was later involved in a death last year?

Understanding that it may be policy to not talk about a case that could have pending litigation, comment should not be given.

For those who are down on the driver because she didn't follow the law, that's exactly what this is all about. SHE has to follow the law, but the Town apparently gets to ignore it. What if the cop found her at her house, and knew that her license had been suspened? If her car was legally parked on the street, it seems the Town's 'policy' would allow them to tow the car away.

Personally, I'd like the Chief to come out from behind the "no comment" hiding place and talk about this. Then I could share with him ALL of the Federal and State (including Illinois, where he apparently did this before) court cases that make this ILLEGAL. I could share with him the Wisconsin law that makes this ILLEGAL. And he could share with me the truth, which is that this is all about getting money--mostly out of those that can afford it the least, and from those who most likely can't afford a lawyer to fight it.

So, Chief Wilson, show me where I am wrong, and I promise a full and complete apology.

Life is so simple if you just obey the laws. This was all her fault. Pay your fines and move on. Time to grow up Tammy.

Makes no sense to tow someone's vehicle just because it's policy. And an ADMINISTRATIVE fee??? The officer made the stop so he's already there. Don't see a need for an extra fee. That's what the ticket is for. Wisconsin law allows for vehicles to remain parked along the road as long as they are in an area that parking is legal and they aren't a hazard...i.e the shoulder is wide enough, visibility isn't an issue, no impending snow fall that would require room for snowplows. Sounds like this policy is walking a really fine line when it comes to what Wisconsin courts have deemed
reasonable".

Ummm....Police Chiefs are not "voted" for by citizens of the municipality.....If you need evidence of this, simply look no further than Milton and the mess they are in because of the unfortunate commission system they are bound to.

Obviously this policy is what the citizens of Beloit want, or they would never have voted for their present Chief of Police. If they didn't vote, or don't care, then I have no sympathy.

The department’s policy for drivers with suspended or revoked licenses says “officers will not leave the vehicle where stopped, call the vehicle owner or wait for a licensed driver to arrive. Vehicle will be towed immediately.”

I know there have been stories on this convoluted policy before. If the driver is stopped in an area where it is legal to park a vehicle. It would seem logical that no tow would be required. To employ a policy requiring certain violators vehicles to be towed, then charging for the officers time executing the policy,doesn't sound "reasonable"

The Chief previously indicated-"the administrative fee is proof that the town takes traffic violations seriously and punishes violators thoroughly."

Policy should have a public safety/public order basis. It's not the Chief or Village officials job to dream up additional punishments for certain violators.

It is funny how people will never accept responsibility for their actions. It is always someone else’s fault. Too bad her kid had to witness the whole event. I wonder what life’s lesson this has taught him. I wonder why the town wrote that ordinance in the first place? Probably because they got sick of being nice guys and waiting around for two hours waiting for someone to show up to move a vehicle. It mentioned in the story that the officer watched for a half hour. To me, that is a half hour that he could have been on the road doing his job. She should be grateful he stuck around that long. I am betting the cop called the tow truck because the vehicle was stuck a lot harder than they want to admit. Moral of the story: If you are going to drive around without a license, be prepared to pay the consequences.
-STU

Tammy's story has holes. For instance, how could she think her license was valid with an unpaid delinquent traffic ticket. I wonder what else Tammy is lying or exaggerating about.

This possibly could've been avoided if she didn't drive on a revoked license.