Wrecker Regulation

Order 335, version 8, establishes how the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office handles vehicle towing, impoundment, storage, and release. Effective December 17, 2024, the policy describes when officers may remove a vehicle, how they must document its contents, and when an investigative hold may continue.

These decisions can have consequences beyond the cost of a tow. Losing access to a vehicle can affect a person’s ability to work, attend medical appointments, or care for family members. For this reason, the policy should provide clear instructions for both taking possession of a vehicle and returning it.

In this assessment, we examine the safeguards within this version of the policy, the areas where its instructions are incomplete, and changes that could improve accountability.

The policy states that towing should occur only when absolutely necessary. It also allows alternatives in certain circumstances, including leaving a vehicle legally parked following an arrest. These provisions can prevent unnecessary towing costs and disruptions when the vehicle does not need to be removed.

The policy requires officers to document the reason for impoundment, the vehicle’s contents and condition, notification attempts, and changes to a hold. This documentation can help establish what occurred and who was responsible for each decision.

Its ordinary five-day hold structure generally follows Florida law. State law requires written continuation of a hold beyond five days, excluding weekends and holidays, and assigns extended storage costs to the investigating agency when it keeps the vehicle at the wrecker’s facility under that extension. [Florida Statutes §323.001](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/323.001)

The policy also requires justification and supervisory approval for extended holds. An approaching expiration date is not an adequate reason to continue holding a vehicle. This is an important safeguard because continued retention should depend on a continuing need.

The instructions for suspended-license impoundments do not fully explain the conditions required by Florida law. Section 322.34(8) requires officers to establish all listed criteria before its mandatory impoundment provision applies. The statute also provides release procedures involving lessors, lienholders, insurance documentation, qualifying vehicle sales, and judicial review. The policy’s abbreviated instructions could lead to inconsistent decisions if officers rely on them without consulting the statute. [Florida Statutes §322.34(8)](https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2024/322.34)

The policy also incompletely explains the opportunity to challenge an impoundment. Jacksonville’s ordinance provides a hearing deadline, an opportunity to present evidence, and consideration of certain late requests when good cause exists. Those procedures have exceptions and do not apply identically to every type of impoundment. The concern is that the policy does not clearly explain the protections that are available or when they apply. [Jacksonville Code, Chapter 804, Part 11](https://library.municode.com/fl/jacksonville/codes/code_of_ordinances/422374?nodeId=TITXXIIITRPA_CH804JATRCO_PT11IMVE)

Although extended holds require approval, the policy does not establish a clear schedule for recurring review. Initial approval documents why a vehicle was retained at that time. It does not establish that the same justification remains valid as an investigation progresses.

Finally, the instruction to open closed containers during an inventory would benefit from clearer limits. Standardized procedures are important, but an inventory must serve a legitimate administrative purpose. It cannot be used as a pretext for a general search for evidence. [Florida v. Wells](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/1/)

The policy should include a checklist identifying the legal conditions for each type of impoundment. Officers should document the facts supporting those conditions, along with the reason any available alternative was unsuitable.

Owners should receive a clear explanation of why their vehicle was taken, whether an active hold prevents its release, and which procedures are available to challenge the impoundment or charges. The notice should identify applicable deadlines, exceptions, and the office responsible for receiving a request.

Extended holds should have scheduled review dates. Each review should identify the employee responsible, the remaining investigative need, and whether continued retention of the entire vehicle is necessary. Supervisors should document their decision to continue or remove the hold.

The policy should also distinguish authorization to release a vehicle from completion of the release process. Recording when the hold ended, when the wrecker was notified, and when the owner was contacted would help identify preventable delays.

Inventory instructions should address locked containers, potential damage, and documentation of the vehicle’s condition. Clearer boundaries would help officers perform inventories consistently and make those actions easier to review.

The principal concern is the effect that incomplete instructions can have on a person whose vehicle has been taken. An owner may have a valid opportunity to challenge an impoundment but lack a clear explanation of how to use it. A vehicle may no longer be needed for an investigation, yet remain unavailable because responsibility for reviewing or removing the hold is unclear.

These delays can be especially difficult for people who depend on one vehicle or have limited ability to absorb unexpected expenses. The policy should make timely review and release responsibilities explicit.

The written policy alone does not establish that JSO has unlawfully impounded vehicles or denied owners their rights. It does, however, contain gaps that could make errors harder to prevent and identify. Clear conditions, complete notices, and documented review would provide stronger protection for vehicle owners and a more reliable basis for holding the agency accountable.