Cal. Codes » Vehicle Code / DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES / CHAPTER 4. Violation of License Provisions
California Codes

Cal. Vehicle Code § 14607.4 (2026)

Violation of License Provisions

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a)Driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is a privilege, not a right.

(b)Of all drivers involved in fatal accidents, more than 20 percent are not licensed to drive. A driver with a suspended license is four times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident as a properly licensed driver.

(c)At any given time, it is estimated by the Department of Motor Vehicles that of some 20 million driver’s licenses issued to Californians, 720,000 are suspended or revoked. Furthermore, 1,000,000 persons are estimated to be driving without ever having been licensed at all.

(d)Over 4,000 persons are killed in traffic accidents in California annually, and another 330,000 persons suffer injuries.

(e)Californians who comply with the law are frequently victims of traffic accidents caused by unlicensed drivers. These innocent victims suffer considerable pain and property loss at the hands of people who flaunt the law. The Department of Motor Vehicles estimates that 75 percent of all drivers whose driving privilege has been withdrawn continue to drive regardless of the law.

(f)It is necessary and appropriate to take additional steps to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving, including the civil forfeiture of vehicles used by unlicensed drivers. The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property.

(g)The Safe Streets Act of 1994 is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution and the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 40 L. Ed. 2d 452.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2014 · leading case: Snyder v. Enter. Rent-a-car, San Lfrancisco, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snyder v. Enter. Rent-a-car, San Lfrancisco, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “” See Cal. Veh.Code § 14607.4(b). As noted above, plaintiffs have established that ERAC-SF was negligent per se in renting a vehicle to a driver with a suspended license.”
Juan Salazar v. City of Maywood, 414 F. App'x 73 (9th Cir. 2011). “Cal. Veh.Code § 14607.4. Although an amicus suggests that the statute disproportionately affects minorities and low income families, plaintiffs did not allege or argue any claim of equal protection violation.”
Sandoval v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 72 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “” Cal. Veh.Code § 14607.4. City Defendants argue that Ruiz was covered by the statute, and that this was sufficient to justify the thirty-day impoundment under the Fourth Amendment.”
Cal. Vehicle Code § 14607.4(b): 1 case
Snyder v. Enter. Rent-a-car, San Lfrancisco, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “” See Cal. Veh.Code § 14607.4(b). As noted above, plaintiffs have established that ERAC-SF was negligent per se in renting a vehicle to a driver with a suspended license.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.