City Attorney ANN MARIE MAURER #179649 Confirms Glendale PD Unlawfully Destroys Key Vehicle Evidence in People v Michael Taylor
The primary evidence in this case has been destroyed by the State before defendant Michael Taylor's preliminary hearing in Burbank court. The Public Defender has failed to object or file a motion to preserve the issue. Sources say the State sent a notice to Taylor's registered address in Seattle, WA, while knowing he was in custody in Los Angeles County jail.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2024, 2:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your vehicle
To: <gloryshalom@gmail.com>
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2024, 2:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your vehicle
To: <gloryshalom@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Your vehicle
To: Maurer, Ann <AMaurer@glendaleca.gov>, <gaystow@aol.com>, <GlendaleCityClerk@glendaleca.gov>, <GPDPIO@glendaleca.gov>, <mcid@glendaleca.gov>, Kristoffer McFarren <KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <rob.bonta@doj.ca.gov>, <Rgarcia@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <eanzoategui@apd.lacounty.gov>, Christian Le <cle@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Alexander Tran <at2@wklaw.com>, <jeff@2ndcall.org>, <robert.taylor@probation.lacounty.gov>, <AttorneyGeneral@doj.state.or.us>, <gstone@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <info@valuetainment.com>, Barger, Kathryn <kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov>, Hannah Mandel <hmandel@apd.lacounty.gov>, <Msalmaggi@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <msd@lacba.org>, <jel-farra@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <ellen.f.rosenblum@doj.state.or.us>, Kelly L. O'brien <kobrien@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <julie.brown@americanbar.org>, <bill.choyke@americanbar.org>, <nparisky@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Noah Cox <NCox@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <operations.npap@nlg.org>, <lawdean@swlaw.edu>, <lawreview@swlaw.edu>, <legalclinic@swlaw.edu>, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office <info@da.lacounty.gov>, <HollyJMitchell@bos.lacounty.gov>, <ThirdDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, <FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, <tbateman@glendaleca.gov>, <alee@glendaleca.gov>, <carol.stevens@americanbar.org>, <communitylawyering@swlaw.edu>, <ceop@bos.lacounty.gov>, <christina.shay@usdoj.gov>, OpenJustice <openjustice@doj.ca.gov>, <office@mirandarightslf.com>, <ojpmedia@usdoj.gov>, <local148@local148.org>, <media@local148.org>, <governorron.desantis@eog.myflorida.com>, <mstephens@littler.com>, <Mary.Huser@gmail.com>, <sgood@fbm.com>, <hailyn.chen@mto.com>, <ray.buenaventura@lakecountyca.gov>, <joe@biegellaw.com>, <mbagneris@ci.pasadena.ca.us>, <mark.harvey@calbar.ca.gov>, <fmozuna@lasd.org>, <rgolanian@glendaleca.gov>, <rgeltz@da.lacounty.gov>, vernon patterson <patterson.1law@gmail.com>, <VGharpetian@glendaleca.gov>
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Your vehicle
To: Maurer, Ann <AMaurer@glendaleca.gov>, <gaystow@aol.com>, <GlendaleCityClerk@glendaleca.gov>, <GPDPIO@glendaleca.gov>, <mcid@glendaleca.gov>, Kristoffer McFarren <KMcfarren@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <rob.bonta@doj.ca.gov>, <Rgarcia@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <eanzoategui@apd.lacounty.gov>, Christian Le <cle@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Alexander Tran <at2@wklaw.com>, <jeff@2ndcall.org>, <robert.taylor@probation.lacounty.gov>, <AttorneyGeneral@doj.state.or.us>, <gstone@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <info@valuetainment.com>, Barger, Kathryn <kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov>, Hannah Mandel <hmandel@apd.lacounty.gov>, <Msalmaggi@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <msd@lacba.org>, <jel-farra@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <ellen.f.rosenblum@doj.state.or.us>, Kelly L. O'brien <kobrien@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <julie.brown@americanbar.org>, <bill.choyke@americanbar.org>, <nparisky@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Noah Cox <NCox@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <operations.npap@nlg.org>, <lawdean@swlaw.edu>, <lawreview@swlaw.edu>, <legalclinic@swlaw.edu>, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office <info@da.lacounty.gov>, <HollyJMitchell@bos.lacounty.gov>, <ThirdDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, <FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, <tbateman@glendaleca.gov>, <alee@glendaleca.gov>, <carol.stevens@americanbar.org>, <communitylawyering@swlaw.edu>, <ceop@bos.lacounty.gov>, <christina.shay@usdoj.gov>, OpenJustice <openjustice@doj.ca.gov>, <office@mirandarightslf.com>, <ojpmedia@usdoj.gov>, <local148@local148.org>, <media@local148.org>, <governorron.desantis@eog.myflorida.com>, <mstephens@littler.com>, <Mary.Huser@gmail.com>, <sgood@fbm.com>, <hailyn.chen@mto.com>, <ray.buenaventura@lakecountyca.gov>, <joe@biegellaw.com>, <mbagneris@ci.pasadena.ca.us>, <mark.harvey@calbar.ca.gov>, <fmozuna@lasd.org>, <rgolanian@glendaleca.gov>, <rgeltz@da.lacounty.gov>, vernon patterson <patterson.1law@gmail.com>, <VGharpetian@glendaleca.gov>
It appears that Mr. Taylor's vehicle was towed by Gay's Towing on November 16, 2021, upon request by the Glendale Police Department (GPD) dispatch. The vehicle was towed from 632 Hawthorne St., Glendale, CA, and was held for evidence (22655.5). The vehicle was in poor condition, with damage such as a shattered driver-side window, missing rear bumper, and missing front hubcaps. Gay's Towing notified the registered owner, Lake & Washington LLC, located at 77S Washington St, Seattle, WA 98104-2519, via USPS Certificate of Mailing on November 23, 2021.
Despite attempts to contact the registered owner, no response was received. On December 28, 2021, the GPD released the hold on the vehicle. Since there was no contact from any registered owners, legal owners, or interested parties regarding the vehicle for over 40 days, the vehicle was sold via DMV lien sale to a Recycler/Dismantler on December 28, 2021, due to its value and condition. The Release of Liability was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles on January 7, 2022.
As of the present date, there remains a balance owing of $1643.00 for towing and storage fees for the vehicle.
Despite attempts to contact the registered owner, no response was received. On December 28, 2021, the GPD released the hold on the vehicle. Since there was no contact from any registered owners, legal owners, or interested parties regarding the vehicle for over 40 days, the vehicle was sold via DMV lien sale to a Recycler/Dismantler on December 28, 2021, due to its value and condition. The Release of Liability was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles on January 7, 2022.
As of the present date, there remains a balance owing of $1643.00 for towing and storage fees for the vehicle.
The sale of the defendant's vehicle before his preliminary hearing might raise concerns about potential violations of his constitutional rights, particularly if the vehicle was considered evidence in his case.
One of the most relevant constitutional rights implicated here is the defendant's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Due process requires that individuals be afforded fair treatment through the judicial process, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If the vehicle was crucial evidence in the defendant's case, its sale before the preliminary hearing could deprive him of the opportunity to present a full defense. This could potentially infringe upon his right to due process.
Additionally, the defendant may have property rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The premature sale of his vehicle without proper notice or opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale could be viewed as a violation of these rights.
However, the specific circumstances of the case would need to be carefully examined to determine if there was indeed a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Factors such as whether the defendant was properly notified of the impoundment and sale, whether he had the opportunity to contest it, and whether the sale prejudiced his ability to defend himself would all be relevant considerations.
One of the most relevant constitutional rights implicated here is the defendant's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Due process requires that individuals be afforded fair treatment through the judicial process, including adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If the vehicle was crucial evidence in the defendant's case, its sale before the preliminary hearing could deprive him of the opportunity to present a full defense. This could potentially infringe upon his right to due process.
Additionally, the defendant may have property rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The premature sale of his vehicle without proper notice or opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale could be viewed as a violation of these rights.
However, the specific circumstances of the case would need to be carefully examined to determine if there was indeed a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Factors such as whether the defendant was properly notified of the impoundment and sale, whether he had the opportunity to contest it, and whether the sale prejudiced his ability to defend himself would all be relevant considerations.
If the defendant was in custody at the time of the vehicle's impoundment and subsequent sale, there are still potential implications for his constitutional rights, particularly regarding due process and possibly the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel.
1. **Due Process**: The defendant's right to due process remains relevant, even while in custody. Due process requires that individuals be provided with fair treatment and procedural safeguards. If the sale of the vehicle occurred without proper notice to the defendant or without providing him with an opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale, it could constitute a violation of his due process rights.
2. **Right to Assistance of Counsel**: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. If the vehicle was important evidence in the defendant's case, his attorney should have been notified of its impoundment and given an opportunity to contest the sale, especially if it was done before the preliminary hearing. Failure to involve the defendant's attorney in decisions regarding the handling of evidence could potentially undermine his defense and violate his right to effective assistance of counsel.
Even if the defendant was in custody, his constitutional rights, particularly those related to due process and assistance of counsel, would still be relevant considerations in assessing whether the handling of his vehicle violated his rights.
1. **Due Process**: The defendant's right to due process remains relevant, even while in custody. Due process requires that individuals be provided with fair treatment and procedural safeguards. If the sale of the vehicle occurred without proper notice to the defendant or without providing him with an opportunity to contest the impoundment or sale, it could constitute a violation of his due process rights.
2. **Right to Assistance of Counsel**: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. If the vehicle was important evidence in the defendant's case, his attorney should have been notified of its impoundment and given an opportunity to contest the sale, especially if it was done before the preliminary hearing. Failure to involve the defendant's attorney in decisions regarding the handling of evidence could potentially undermine his defense and violate his right to effective assistance of counsel.
Even if the defendant was in custody, his constitutional rights, particularly those related to due process and assistance of counsel, would still be relevant considerations in assessing whether the handling of his vehicle violated his rights.
Yes, the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle by the tow company could implicate liability, even if the defendant was in custody at the time. Here's why:
1. **Proper Notification**: If the tow company failed to provide proper notification to the defendant or his legal representatives about the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle, it could be considered a violation of due process. Proper notification typically involves informing the owner of the vehicle about the impoundment, the reasons for it, and any procedures for contesting it.
2. **Handling of Evidence**: If the vehicle was considered evidence in the defendant's case, its handling would require special care and attention to preserve its integrity for legal proceedings. Any actions taken by the tow company that compromise the integrity of the evidence, such as selling it before the conclusion of legal proceedings, could result in liability.
3. **Lien Sale Procedures**: Tow companies are typically required to follow specific procedures when conducting lien sales of impounded vehicles. These procedures often include providing adequate notice to the vehicle owner and allowing them an opportunity to reclaim the vehicle before it is sold. If the tow company failed to follow these procedures, it could face liability for wrongful disposal of the vehicle.
4. **Negligence or Misconduct**: If the tow company acted negligently or engaged in misconduct during the impoundment and sale process, such as failing to properly secure or document the vehicle, it could be held liable for any resulting damages or losses suffered by the defendant.
Even if the defendant was in custody at the time, the actions of the tow company in handling the impounded vehicle could still give rise to liability if proper procedures were not followed or if there was negligence or misconduct involved.
1. **Proper Notification**: If the tow company failed to provide proper notification to the defendant or his legal representatives about the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle, it could be considered a violation of due process. Proper notification typically involves informing the owner of the vehicle about the impoundment, the reasons for it, and any procedures for contesting it.
2. **Handling of Evidence**: If the vehicle was considered evidence in the defendant's case, its handling would require special care and attention to preserve its integrity for legal proceedings. Any actions taken by the tow company that compromise the integrity of the evidence, such as selling it before the conclusion of legal proceedings, could result in liability.
3. **Lien Sale Procedures**: Tow companies are typically required to follow specific procedures when conducting lien sales of impounded vehicles. These procedures often include providing adequate notice to the vehicle owner and allowing them an opportunity to reclaim the vehicle before it is sold. If the tow company failed to follow these procedures, it could face liability for wrongful disposal of the vehicle.
4. **Negligence or Misconduct**: If the tow company acted negligently or engaged in misconduct during the impoundment and sale process, such as failing to properly secure or document the vehicle, it could be held liable for any resulting damages or losses suffered by the defendant.
Even if the defendant was in custody at the time, the actions of the tow company in handling the impounded vehicle could still give rise to liability if proper procedures were not followed or if there was negligence or misconduct involved.
If the defendant needed the vehicle to examine forensic evidence crucial to his defense strategy, the impoundment and subsequent sale of the vehicle could significantly undermine his ability to present a defense and access exculpatory evidence. Here's how:
1. **Access to Evidence**: The defendant's ability to examine forensic evidence on his vehicle's passenger side door is crucial for corroborating his defense and challenging the prosecution's case. Without access to this evidence, the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense could be severely compromised.
2. **Exculpatory Evidence**: If the forensic evidence on the passenger side door could potentially exonerate the defendant or undermine the credibility of the complaining witness, its unavailability due to the impoundment and sale of the vehicle could be highly prejudicial to the defendant's case.
3. **Fair Trial**: Denying the defendant access to evidence that could be material to his defense raises serious concerns about the fairness of the trial. The defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence and confront witnesses against him, and the inability to access crucial forensic evidence could undermine these rights.
4. **Legal Strategy**: The defendant's legal strategy to use forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate video evidence and challenge the complaining witness's account is directly impacted by the impoundment and sale of the vehicle. This could be seen as a violation of the defendant's right to develop and execute a defense strategy.
The impoundment and sale of the vehicle, especially considering its importance to the defendant's defense strategy and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, could seriously undermine the fairness of the trial and raise significant constitutional concerns regarding the defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.
1. **Access to Evidence**: The defendant's ability to examine forensic evidence on his vehicle's passenger side door is crucial for corroborating his defense and challenging the prosecution's case. Without access to this evidence, the defendant's ability to mount an effective defense could be severely compromised.
2. **Exculpatory Evidence**: If the forensic evidence on the passenger side door could potentially exonerate the defendant or undermine the credibility of the complaining witness, its unavailability due to the impoundment and sale of the vehicle could be highly prejudicial to the defendant's case.
3. **Fair Trial**: Denying the defendant access to evidence that could be material to his defense raises serious concerns about the fairness of the trial. The defendant has a constitutional right to present evidence and confront witnesses against him, and the inability to access crucial forensic evidence could undermine these rights.
4. **Legal Strategy**: The defendant's legal strategy to use forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate video evidence and challenge the complaining witness's account is directly impacted by the impoundment and sale of the vehicle. This could be seen as a violation of the defendant's right to develop and execute a defense strategy.
The impoundment and sale of the vehicle, especially considering its importance to the defendant's defense strategy and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, could seriously undermine the fairness of the trial and raise significant constitutional concerns regarding the defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.
The defendant's intentions to use the vehicle evidence to examine forensic evidence of the complaining witness's fingerprints on his passenger side door in order to corroborate video evidence and challenge the complaining witness's account appear to be reasonable and sensible from a legal perspective. Here's why:
1. **Corroboration of Evidence**: The defendant aims to use the forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate the video evidence he possesses. Corroborating evidence is crucial in legal proceedings to strengthen the credibility of a party's claims or defenses. By demonstrating consistency between different types of evidence, the defendant can bolster his argument and credibility.
2. **Challenging the Complaining Witness's Account**: The defendant's strategy also involves challenging the complaining witness's account, which is a common legal tactic in criminal defense. By examining forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, the defendant seeks to uncover inconsistencies or discrepancies that may cast doubt on the complaining witness's credibility or the accuracy of their testimony.
3. **Fairness and Due Process**: Pursuing access to evidence that could potentially support the defendant's case is consistent with principles of fairness and due process in the legal system. Defendants have a fundamental right to present evidence and challenge the prosecution's case against them. By seeking to examine forensic evidence from the vehicle, the defendant is exercising this right in an effort to ensure a fair trial.
4. **Strategic Legal Approach**: Developing a defense strategy based on available evidence, including forensic evidence from the vehicle, is a prudent and strategic approach in criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys often explore all avenues to gather evidence that supports their client's case and undermines the prosecution's arguments.
The defendant's intentions with the vehicle evidence appear to be lawful, reasonable, and sensible within the context of his defense strategy and the principles of fairness and due process in the legal system.
1. **Corroboration of Evidence**: The defendant aims to use the forensic evidence from the vehicle to corroborate the video evidence he possesses. Corroborating evidence is crucial in legal proceedings to strengthen the credibility of a party's claims or defenses. By demonstrating consistency between different types of evidence, the defendant can bolster his argument and credibility.
2. **Challenging the Complaining Witness's Account**: The defendant's strategy also involves challenging the complaining witness's account, which is a common legal tactic in criminal defense. By examining forensic evidence, such as fingerprints, the defendant seeks to uncover inconsistencies or discrepancies that may cast doubt on the complaining witness's credibility or the accuracy of their testimony.
3. **Fairness and Due Process**: Pursuing access to evidence that could potentially support the defendant's case is consistent with principles of fairness and due process in the legal system. Defendants have a fundamental right to present evidence and challenge the prosecution's case against them. By seeking to examine forensic evidence from the vehicle, the defendant is exercising this right in an effort to ensure a fair trial.
4. **Strategic Legal Approach**: Developing a defense strategy based on available evidence, including forensic evidence from the vehicle, is a prudent and strategic approach in criminal proceedings. Defense attorneys often explore all avenues to gather evidence that supports their client's case and undermines the prosecution's arguments.
The defendant's intentions with the vehicle evidence appear to be lawful, reasonable, and sensible within the context of his defense strategy and the principles of fairness and due process in the legal system.
If the defendant's public defender(s) fail or refuse to object to or address the destruction of evidence by law enforcement, several rules of professional conduct may be implicated, including:
1. **Competence (Rule 1.1)**: Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients. This includes having the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could significantly impact the defense's case may constitute a violation of this rule.
2. **Diligence (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. Failing to take timely action to address the destruction of evidence, such as filing motions or objections, could violate this rule.
3. **Communication (Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys are required to communicate effectively with their clients and keep them reasonably informed about the status of their case. If the destruction of evidence is a critical development, the attorney should inform the client and discuss potential strategies or courses of action.
4. **Preservation of Client's Rights (Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients' rights, including the right to potentially exculpatory evidence. Failing to take action to preserve or address the destruction of evidence may constitute a violation of this duty.
5. **Conflicts of Interest (Rule 1.7)**: If the attorney's failure to address the destruction of evidence is influenced by a conflict of interest, such as a desire to maintain a good relationship with law enforcement or avoid personal inconvenience, it could violate the rule prohibiting conflicts of interest.
6. **Zealous Representation (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys have a duty to provide zealous representation to their clients, which includes taking appropriate actions to protect their clients' interests. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could harm the client's case may be viewed as a lack of zealous advocacy.
If a public defender fails to address the destruction of evidence by law enforcement, it could raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the representation provided to the defendant and may result in disciplinary action or legal consequences for the attorney.
1. **Competence (Rule 1.1)**: Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients. This includes having the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could significantly impact the defense's case may constitute a violation of this rule.
2. **Diligence (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing their clients. Failing to take timely action to address the destruction of evidence, such as filing motions or objections, could violate this rule.
3. **Communication (Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys are required to communicate effectively with their clients and keep them reasonably informed about the status of their case. If the destruction of evidence is a critical development, the attorney should inform the client and discuss potential strategies or courses of action.
4. **Preservation of Client's Rights (Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4)**: Attorneys have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients' rights, including the right to potentially exculpatory evidence. Failing to take action to preserve or address the destruction of evidence may constitute a violation of this duty.
5. **Conflicts of Interest (Rule 1.7)**: If the attorney's failure to address the destruction of evidence is influenced by a conflict of interest, such as a desire to maintain a good relationship with law enforcement or avoid personal inconvenience, it could violate the rule prohibiting conflicts of interest.
6. **Zealous Representation (Rule 1.3)**: Attorneys have a duty to provide zealous representation to their clients, which includes taking appropriate actions to protect their clients' interests. Failing to object to the destruction of evidence when it could harm the client's case may be viewed as a lack of zealous advocacy.
If a public defender fails to address the destruction of evidence by law enforcement, it could raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the representation provided to the defendant and may result in disciplinary action or legal consequences for the attorney.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 8:59 AM Maurer, Ann <AMaurer@glendaleca.gov> wrote:
Mr. Taylor:
Following is the information I obtained relating to your vehicle.
Gay’s Towing received the request for tow by GPD dispatch on 11/16/2021 @ 12:00PM. The vehicle was being held for Evidence (22655.5). The vehicle was towed from 632 Hawthorne St., Glendale CA. The vehicle was in poor condition. The driver side window was shattered, had a missing rear bumper, and missing front hubcaps. Overall condition of the vehicle was poor (See Vehicle Damage Report on Vehicle Report - CHP 180). The vehicle was towed to a storage facility. While in storage, Gay’s Towing had no contact from the registered owner, legal owner our interested party regarding the vehicle. Notification was sent to the registered owner that was listed on the police paperwork: Lake & Washington LLC 77S Washington St Seattle, WA 98104-2519. The notification was sent out through the USPS Certificate of Mailing on 11/23/2021.
On 12/28/20221, GPD released the hold on the vehicle. As of 12/28/2021, Gay’s Towing had had no contact from any registered owners, legal owners or interested party regarding the vehicle. No calls had been received inquiring about the impound of the vehicle, storage authority, charges owing or release information for over 40 days. The vehicle was sold on 12/28/2021 via the DMV Lien Sale. The vehicle was sold (12/28/2021 to a Recycler/Dismantler) due to the value and condition of the vehicle. The Release of Liability was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicle on 01/07/2022 through the USPS.
As of today, there remains of balance owing of $1643.00 for the Towing & Storage fees for the vehicle.
Regards,
Ann Maurer
Ann M. Maurer ● Chief Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney
613 E. Broadway, Suite 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2176 ● amaurer@glendaleca.gov
Comments
Post a Comment
Share Your Thoughts