MASON CITY – The Mason City council won’t pursue re-writing city code that would give police officers more authority to search and impound the vehicles of motorists during minor traffic stops.
The city council was considering changes to city code that would allow a person’s vehicle to be searched and then impounded by police if the person could not produce proof of insurance or driving with a suspended license.
Currently, an individual stopped by police for no insurance or driving with a suspended license may be cited or warned and allowed 48 hours to drive, according to police chief Michael Lashbrook, as the matter is cleared up. Vehicles are only impounded during major criminal investigations in Mason City; police already have authority to do those impounds and subsequent searches.
The Mason City council sought to potentially expand police powers of search and impound for only minor traffic stops, and discussed the issue Wednesday night during its work session at city hall.
Chief Lashbrook offered that his department had no use for the expanded searches and impound. He said the searches would take one to two hours, taking his officers away from the more pressing criminal activity in town. This revelation came after a lower-ranking officer, Duane Kemna, previously presented the idea to the council. According to sources, Kemna and other officers who are aligned with Mayor Eric Bookmeyer and councilman Travis Hickey circumvented Chief Lashbrook and sought to have the council pass the re-written code without the chief’s input. Sources are telling NIT that there is schism at the MCPD with some officers favoring Chief Lashbrook and others aligning themselves into a different camp.
It was evident during discussion of the code that Councilman Hickey had brought the idea of the expanded searches and impounds forward with Bookmeyer’s backing, and the pair had worked with hourly-paid city attorney Randy Nielsen to craft the new code. Some are saying the potential increase in impounds would be a steadier income stream for the city.
Councilman Alex Kuhn was not in favor of moving forward with the plan, and John Lee was less-than enthusiastic as well. Both said the impounding of vehciles would place an extra, undue burden on those already having trouble. Scott Tornquist said he had no interest in it at all, saying the expansion of police powers could be used to play favorites. He mentioned the word “Baltimore” and how people are already questioning the powers and actions of police around the country.
Jean Marinos wasn’t sure about the idea. The only council person who backed the Hickey-Bookmeyer plan was Janet Solberg, an insurance saleswoman who launched an odd and rambling lecture about how the insurance business works, how she was not the one who was driving with no insurance and anyone caught doing so should be punished with fines and an impound by the city in addition to the penalties already in use.
After about 45 minutes of discussion, Hickey slowly sat back in his chair and declared the issue “dead” as it was evident that the four votes needed to pass the council were not there.
Watch entire discussion:
A Minnesota man’s car is impounded Wednesday night in Mason City. The man told NIT it would cost him $100 to get the car back:
It’s an attempt to dissolve the 4th amendment and search vehicles without reasonable suspicion. If not for intelligent citizens in the community it would have happened. Protect & Serve not Harass & Violate the constitution. It’s also interesting when they say let’s have them use discretion when to impound and not. That’s code for we “think” drugs maybe in this car. It’s lazy and it’s wrong !!!!!!
The only time I refused to let an officer search my vehicle I was in a military truck and I was on a mission. Ironically it was a MCPD officer that stopped me and wanted to search the truck.
I hear where your all coming from when it comes to police having to much power. I for one don’t want any more government intervention in my life. This country has gotten way out of hand, but what to do. I’m just tired of paying for free loaders.
Anybody ever hear of the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights?
I would also like to ask the chief, why his officers stop a vehicle for whatever reason, and promptly ask everybody in the car for their ID?
According to a Des Moines register article, this is not required, and may not be legal?
I like this idea for the simple fact, why should I and others that pay for insurance, have to pay for those that drive uninsured. It’s said that they don’t have $50.00 a month to buy insurance but they can buy cigarettes, alcohol, and pay for a cell phone. Having insurance is a personnel responsibility that all drivers should have. But no, lets let others pay for our actions.
@Allen-I hear what you are saying and somewhat agree. There is a lot of damage done by uninsured drivers that innocent people have to pay. The problem as I see it is the same as the war on drugs and to a certain extent alcohol. We take a lot of people and make criminals out of otherwise potential tax payers and force them on the welfare system. I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that what we are doing now is not working. Adding to that burden just doesn’t make sense.
Allen, LVS, we were not only talking about uninsured drivers here. If your insurance card had expired, your car could be towed at a cost of 250.00 or more to you!
The problem with this ordance, as well as many laws, it gives the police far to much power to use at their discrection. Unfortantly, common sense does not rule the day. Our law enforcement have become little more than revenue collectors for the state.
Remember, these folks gave 6000 snow parking tickets with no snow on the ground
@Anonymous-I agree that police do not need another reason to pull people over and check them. There is to much of that happening now. However, I don’t know the answer as it is obvious that there are lots of people who are not obeying the law. I can understand the frustration of a insured driver having to pay for the uninsured people who just don’t care. I don’t know the answer but I know what we are doing now doesn’t work. It can’t be ignored when people break the law.
cont.-laws are made to protect the majority of the people but today they have just been turned into a revenue source for the state and cities. Something needs to change but I don’t think it will happen. There is just to much money involved. Think of it, not just the fines but all of the wages involved in law enforcement and the courts, plus all the money that goes to the state, county’s and city.
You are lucky Hickey and Solberg don’t run this town. It’s bad enough both of them are able to vote on complex issues like this when they obviously have little clue about the dynamics. This thing would have passed in a heartbeat if it was up to them and Bookee.
Fair question, but those drivers are already tagged by penalties if they are caught. The city don’t need to pile on with even more. People’s first reactions are to punish, but remember, there are already penalties in place. Let those work as intended; they were made by smarter people than the dolts in city hall who dreamed this up.
Bullies will be bullies. It doesn’t surprise me who was in favor of this.
The police can’t keep up with all the drunks and druggers they have now. Besides, there is no room in the jail. Doing this would just be another revenue source for the city at the expense of the people who can least afford it.
Pretty much spot-on. It was a money grab, pure and simple. Eric and his two zombies love to take from those who have little (or rich people like his own wife). I was astounded by the stupidity and denseness of Solberg. I literally forgot how dumb this woman is. She was in favor simply because she felt she could sell more insurance policies. What a selfish waste of space and horrible illusion of a public servant.
@Matt-It is just real hard to believe that people really voted those two in. They must be even dumber than they are.