Guilliani Confiscating Cars

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
Sitting here, watching TalkBack Live, I think I'm gonna be physically ill. Mayor Rudy Guilliani has come to the conclusion that it might be fun to confiscate the cars of anyone convicted of DUI. He is interpreting the "used in a crime" argument to start this action absent legislative input.

MADD is, as expected, fully in agreement and even supports "frequent and random DUI checkpoints". The spokeswoman for MADD mentioned that people need to realize that autos are nothing but 2,000 pound "deadly weapons"...anyone seen this logic at work before?

ACLU attorney is loosing badly. New york official has asked him for his stand on firearms...ACLU guy says something like "Now you know that you can't equate a gun with a family automobile"...(I can't?). NY Official shuts him up by interpreting ACLU position: "What we're seeing here is a legal shell game. Now you see due process; now you don't." (See tha nice ACLU spokesperson hoisted on his own pitard.)

2,300 drunk driving laws on the books; full registration; still people get arrested...hmmm. Criminal actions against the transgressors are not enough; better take their property. Think the state will pay off the loan on your car when they take it? Or will they get it free and clear and leave you holding the bag?

Worse yet...the TalkBack Live crowd is eating it up! What's next? Reckless Driving is a crime; so's a broken tail light; so's an expired tag. But then, that would be a "ridiculous" counter. "Surely no one will ever contemplate property seizure for such transgressions"...will they?
Rich
 
The forfeiture (or confiscation) statutues first brainstormed in the War on Drugs, and now utilized extensively, are creating a severely classed society; It's nothing more than the gov't (DA's) finding a way to fund their office (and the political careers of their chiefs). The Supremes have unfortunately upheld almost every form of this nonsense, because it is in theory NOT "punishment", but simply cost-recovery. Again, one of the prices of having "conservative" justices on the bench. The founding fathers would clearly have thought forfeiture laws unconstitutional as double jeopardy had they existed at that time.

Makes me glad I don't have cable TV anymore; Talkback Live used to raise my BP regularly. Forget about the moronic political debate on that show; It's just a drop in the bucket, and more importantly, there's nothing you can do about it. Instead, work on controlling what you can - getting all gun owners to suscribe to NRA memberships, registering people to vote, etc. But thanks for bringing it to our attention. Rudy Guliani should stick to SNL skits, and leave the U.S. Senate for others. He's got to please all the imbeciles living in NYC right now. The proper remedy for drunk driving problems is indeed increasing the penalties for violating the law, whether fines or incarceration, but NOT this ridiculous business of in effect, fining someone, but calling it what it's not ("forfeiture"), and not calling it what it is (punishment); and again, not blaming the instrumentality (here, the car).
 
Rich..

You missed a key point:
Conviction is not requisite!

Mere arrest is the key. Two separate court hearings will be required:
1) The DUI
2) The dispensation of the vehicle

Even if found innocent in the DUI hearing, you still have a separate hearing for the vehicle. With the backlog in the Courts, it still could take weeks to get your car back even when innocent.

They do something similar in Oakland Calif: they confiscate the vehicles of suspected "Johns" cruising for hookers. Also, Calif will confiscate your vehicle for expired tags.

Maybe NY should sue Guiliani, after all, this action is responsible for me buying 100 rounds of 12 gauge and 250 rounds of .223 today :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited February 22, 1999).]
 
Thanks, DC. Now I am ill!

I guess Rudy needs to move further left, if he's to compete with the First Lady for a Senate seat. Heck, put a dress and bad wig on him and I wouldn't know the difference ('cept Rudy would probably have the better legs! :)).
Rich
 
If they successfully utilize the same laws used to seize cash you have to prove the car is innocent...the fact that the state could not convict you of DUI is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you.

This is a classic example of good intentions (supposedly) paving the road to hell.

I personally do not believe the original intention of the seizure laws was benign. I believe the war on drugs propaganda to be just that...propaganda. The hundreds if not thousands of LEO's who have happily enforced these laws are unwitting dupes and patsies for the people intent on stealing freedom from us all. Hope the LEO's don't get too angry when they realize they've been had. Or maybe I hope they do get too angry.
 
Living as I do just 30 miles from the NYC limits I find nothing out of the ordinary about this program. NYC has to fund its bloated budgets in any way it can.They have succeeded in taxing non city residents for years with the help of the NY state legislature. I get hit with surcharges on my phone bill and on my business to support the city subways. The tolls on the bridges I must use to get off of Long Island are $3.50 each way!and this money is used to pay salaries of NYC transit workers, not to fix the bridges.
Those of you who live in the real America should pay attention to what is going on here, to what happens when the Liberals take charge.
 
Alright, I may be seriously flamed for this reply, but, If I am incorrect in my thinking please educate me.

I personally LIKE the idea of confiscation of the car IF the individual is caught with an over-limit blood alcohol level. Are there not portable ways to get a reliable reading of blood alcohol content?

Consider the damage done by a drunk individual. Of most of the accidents involving alcohol the drunk walks away from the accident and the victims are the ones that are dead or require hospitalization.

Would you want a drunk with a loaded gun weaving his way down your street? I would not, and I would certainly prefer that the gun be removed from his person.

It seems to be an issue of responsibility. It is the individual's responsibility to behave responsibly, no? This is the premise behind the axiom "Let the punishment fit the crime" is it not?

All crimes have a punishment attached, and society has a right to restrict an individual that poses a threat to it's accepted way of life.

To me the concept is sound, it is the details and the process of application that concern me.

Please enlighten me if my thinking is not complete or flawed.

John/az
 
The next step is to ban certain types of cars in NY. Then after that sue General Motors, Ford and Chrysler I mean look at how these car companies flood the New York market with cars!!!!!!!! How can anyone help but get a DUI with all thes cars.
Later
Daren

I think I will double the number of roundsd that I buy at Knob Creek this year
 
John...
Consider these points:
1) Confiscation upon arrest, separate hearing about dispensation of vehicle regardless of guit or innocence.
2) Do you wish a machine that must be calibrated and is subject to mechanical, electrical, etc problems to be the arbeiter of guilt or innocence?
3) What if its a single car household...that topic was addressed...guess what? Tough cookies, the wife or hubby is stranded. That can literally financially destroy a family
4) Realize, this is not an impound..its confiscation...you can't just go pay an impound fee and get it back.

Buying more ammo tomorrow ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
John/az2

I don't want to piss you off because I don't know you and I hate to think I would make an enemy of a stranger but, yes, your thinking is flawed (in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, anybody that drives drunk ought to have to pay a hefty penalty - upon conviction. But when you confiscate the car, on the spot, while the presumption of innocence still exists, it violates the Constitution. I know the government seems hell bent on defacing the Constitution but we don't have to condone it. You may also be placing an undue burden on this drunk's significant other who is guilty of nothing more than being married to a jerk. They get stuck with the car payment and end up having to take a taxi everywhere.

It pays to remember that governments always disguise their true intent. They say they are trying to protect us from this scurge, or better yet, protect our children from some evil. In fact they are trying to generate additional revenue without the usual public outcry. To do this they attack where public sympathy is weakest, like drunk drivers, drug dealers, and recently, smokers and gun companies. You and I are only one unpopular cause away from being taxed or fined out of existence. It's all about MONEY. We have it - they want it - they don't mind bending the rules to get it!

There are already enough laws on the books to put every drunk driver, drug dealer or gang banger away for a long time. They can't drive their cars or live in their fancy homes if they are in jail. And if you want their property, do it with due process and don't put innocents under a hardship.

Just my opinion.
 
John, I'll be happy to pick up the torch from DC! She is hitting this right on the head.

Think about this very carefully - just like the drug law forfeitures, they essentially are charging the property with a crime! They don't even have to charge the person with DUI - they just take the car via this separate, legal fiction.

John, how far do we take this? Even LEO's I know who still believe in the drug war usually admit readily that the drug war forfeitures have been a mockery of due process. This is something I would have expected behind the Iron Curtain, although I gather it is closing in from both coasts! ;)

It is this kind of overreaching that is severely damaging respect for law in this country. This is outrageous, dictatorial behavior, and none of us should accept this for a moment. It is simplistic to accept this at face value and applaud anything that will get drunks off of the road. What's next - sniper nests at roadblocks? Why not - they're a threat, aren't they? Hell, let's seize their home while we're at it! There are no limits, right?

John, please consider this carefully - this isn't at all like a different type of fine imposed upon someone found guilty of a crime. This is theft ... pure and simple! And to think some tell me I should trust my government!

ps - if you agree that this is outrageous, I suggest you check out MADD at http://www.madd.org/ , find your local chapter, and call them to tell them you're disappointed they have turned to theft in order to achieve their goals. IMHO, this damages their moral standing very severely.

For a flavor of the 'deep' discussions they are having at MADD, note:

"Topic: Cars are being confiscated from drunken drivers. (1 of 4), Read 32 times
Conf: General
From: TAMARA WHITE
Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 09:07 PM

I believe that our first chance/warning that you will have your car towed if you drink and drive is enough. A second chance may kill someone. I strongly feel that the vehicle should be taken if they are found guilty of drinking and driving. Some people respond that it is too harsh. I believe these are the people that either have not lost someone to alcohol and or drink and drive themselves..

Topic: Cars are being confiscated from drunken drivers. (2 of 4), Read 31 times
Conf: General
From: BB70
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 06:30 PM

I agree. they have no idea do they. I think we need all the more stronger enforcement any way we can get it."

Yes, sniper nests are next ... apply as a shooter now, and avoid the rush.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 22, 1999).]
 
Alrighty, then...

Please read the entire post before responding. This is a thinking/evaluating process that's going on. 8) (how do you guys do those smiley faces, anyway!?)

DC posted:

"Consider these points:
" 1) Confiscation upon arrest, separate hearing about dispensation of vehicle regardless of guit or innocence."

I did not fully understand the difference between "confiscation" and "impoundment". And I do not agree with confiscation. At aquital the car should be returned post haste, without another hearing. If found guilty the car would be auctioned off.

Just thinking out-loud.

" 2) Do you wish a machine that must be calibrated and is subject to mechanical, electrical, etc problems to be the arbeiter of guilt or innocence?

We already put some weight of testimony to polygraphs, don't we?

" 3) What if its a single car household...that topic was addressed...guess what? Tough cookies, the wife or hubby is stranded. That can literally financially destroy a family"

There is a bus system, taxi, it's part of the consiquences that go with the act.

" 4) Realize, this is not an impound..its confiscation...you can't just go pay an impound fee and get it back."

Mikey,

Thanks for your input. I'm not upset. I just heard about this proposal today, and off the cuff agreed with the CONCEPT, not necessarily the implementation.

I was thinking that it would be good to have the accused individual have a recourse to recover documentable monetary losses from the state if found innocent, but I'm sure that that would open up another legal and litigous can of worms.

I'm getting the idea that this is a very simular situation as we have in the gun law arena. In that there are an over abundance of laws, many that are repetative and overlapping, and that REALLY enforcing the existing laws would produce the results that would benifit us.

I don't trust the government any more than you do. They have an impecible record of bogging down and botching up every "socialized" program they get their dirty fingers into, and then they propose more to "solve" the problems that they created, which only creates more problems...

Jeff,

You add more food for thought. Thank you.

"The jury is out for deliberations."


------------------
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
John-
I think it takes guts to express the opinions that you have and to stick with it despite popular opinion to the contrary.

I, too, have to voice my disagreement:
- In most states jail time is the consequence of a second DUI. Does it sound like property confiscation is a significant added deterrent.
- What about habitual speeders?
- Reckless driving?
- Not buckling up the family?
- Open alcohol container in the car?
- Your kid's caught with a roach in the ashtray?

Each of these are actions of the irresponsible. None of them warrants property confiscation. Confiscation is the tool of the Socialist and Fascist. The comparison to taking one's firearms pales as compares to taking property worth $20K or more.

Moving to the issue of burden on the auto owner (especially where the driver isn't the owner), it's similar to fining each individual in a family for one member's transgression. What's next? Put 'em all in jail because one turned into a violent criminal?
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited February 22, 1999).]
 
John; you raise some interesting points in your post. Before I respond to them, I should mention my bias regarding drunk drivers: I hate them. As an Emergency Dept. physician with 20 years' practice, I have come to absolutely loathe them.

Your first point about impoundment and confiscation: impounding a car means that it is towed to the police impound lot. A fee must be paid, then the car can be released.
A confiscated car must be reclaimed by legal action on the owner's part.

Further, when you add your comment about not agreeing with confiscation, and add the car should be returned post haste upon acquital, have you any idea how long it can be before arrest and acquital? Several months at the least. During which your car has been removed from your possession. Do you think this is due process? I do not.

Your next point about allowing machinery or testing equipment to be allowed into court is a good one. Jurisdictions differ. Some do NOT allow polygraph tests. Some do not allow tape recordings, unless legally obtained (with a court order).

However, I think you miss the point. The way that is proposed, the test, if positive, would be accepted as proof of guilt. This is absolutely contrary to accepted rules of evidence. A defense attorney may ask about the test, when the last time the calibration was done, how familiar the officer was with the procedure, in short, the evidence can be examined and contested in court. Taking the alcohol test results as evidence of guilt robs you of this very important right.

Consider this; if you get a speeding ticket, suppose the officer shows you the readout on the radar gun, issues you a ticket, and confiscates your car. Would you consider this due process? I certainly don't.

You then go on to say that if a car is confiscated, that it is part of the consequences that go with the act. Well, I agree, if the perpertrator is convicted. However, ONLY the perpertrator should be punished. If the sober wife of a drunk driver wishes to drive the family car, and is prohibited from doing so, that is punishment of the innocent. Here in No. California, we are spread out, and sometimes an automobile is the only method of transportation available.

Let me give you an example; suppose your 18 year old child borrows the family car. He is pulled over, and is, by law, judged by a stricter (lower) limit of alcohol. He is slightly over the limit, and therefore is on the spot charged with DUI, and YOU lose the family car. Do you see the justice in that?

Remember, in America we have a legal system that presumes innocence until guilt is proven. This is a valuable right. The Napoleonic system, in France, assumes guilt until innocence is proven.

It seems to me that allowing LEO's (executive branch) to convict people on the spot (usually reserved for the judicial branch), is complete folly. There is a reason why LEO's normally have to convince a member of the judicial branch (ADA) to actually file charges against a person. It is called the system of checks and balances.

Your comments gratefully accepted. Walt
 
I must say that I was the #1 anti-drinking and driving geek in highschool and college. I continue to take keys occassionally to this day. Furthermore, as an LEO, I have a low tolerance for potential offenders in this area.

That said, I think this policy is just plain ridiculous. The points have been well made against the confiscation of the cars already, so I will merely agree with DC, Rich, Walt, et al....

John,

I think you are making a good point that violating DUI laws deserves severe punishment, possibly including the fortfieture of the vehicle you used while committing the crime IF IT IS YOURS. or, at a REAL STRETCH, perhaps even losing your care if you are found negligent by letting your vehicle be driven by someone under the influence.. but there is now way I can understand someone supporting the idea of confiscation before conviction, especially in the case of third party ownership. I heard today that the average time before trial in the 6000 DUI cases in NYC last year was 14 months. I hope you don't really think that someone should be denied the use of their vehicle for over a year because someone else has been accused of driving it with a BAL of .11%. I just don't see it.

Furthermore, while on the topic of NYC's LE...

You guys know I am the #1 "give LEO's the benefit of the doubt" guy, but I am getting a really bad feeling about this Street Crimes Unit in NYC. I first heard about them last year, when some article somewhere described their Jedi-Like ability to tell when someone was carrying a concealed weapon. Apparently, members of this unit regularly stop people on the streets, detain them and search them, with no more Probable Cause than that they think they may be carrying a weapon. I have already expressed that I am reserving judgement on the officers involved in the recent shooting in NYC, but it isn't helping their case in my mind that they are members of this "elite" SCU. Does anyone else have any info on this Unit of the NYPD ??


------------------
-Essayons
 
Glad to see all of these great comments - what a great and ethical group of folks. And John, you let me off pretty easy! ;) (BTW, check the faq's for the smiley face secret decoder ring!)

Since we're on the subject, do any of you feel such confiscation is somehow warranted in drug cases as opposed to hizzoner's drunk driving cases? If so, why?
 
It seems to me this could result in traffic officers only checking out the drivers of expensive cars and passing up the junk cars because it will cost more to tow, store, and sell them than they are worth.


------------------
Bruce Stanton
 
There have been persistent rumors of LEO's being disappointed when a drug bust car is a leased vehicle, and that that fact influences the arrest events. Including checking on the lien status before the bust. True?
 
Oh, bruels, I REALLY doubt that such a law would be applied in such a manner, unless the driver of the expensive car wasn't white. People with expensive cars have influence, while people with beaters have none. Also, LEO's correct me if I'm wrong, but do patrol guys care about the cost of processing an impounded car? I suspect not. This law would undoubtedly be unevenly applied. And, of course, even if it were the most fairly applied law in history, it still lacks any due process whatsoever and would be a total travesty.

Originally this post was going to be some onomatopoeic representation of me screaming with rage until I passed out.
 
Doc,

A quick question, do you, or anyone else, know of a jurisdiction that allows the results of a polygraph as evidence? From my understanding the police can use it as an investigative device but it is inadmissable in court as evidence.

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top