iPOINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLEOFCONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1A. Car Impounds in California ............................................................................................. 1B. Special Order 7: The LAPD’s Response to Impoundment Concerns.............................. 3C. The Instant Litigation Challenging Special Order 7........................................................ 5D. Proposed Intervener Organizations and their Members are Directly Affected by Special Order 7 and the Present Litigation ............................................................................................. 6ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 8I. CHIRLA AND LA VOICE HAVE STANDING AS MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS TOINTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR MEMBERS...................... 8II. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION................................. 9A. Proposed Interveners Have a Direct and Immediate Interest in this Action and Can OnlyProtect It Through Intervention. .................................................................................... 10B. Proposed Interveners’ Interests Cannot Be Adequately Represented by Defendants. .. 12C. Intervention Will Not Enlarge the Issues or Otherwise Delay this Case....................... 14D. The Reasons for Intervention Clearly Outweigh Any Opposition. ............................... 15E. The Application is Timely Made................................................................................... 15CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 15