Court: Seizure Of DWI Vehicles Legal

KOAT ^

[chance33_98]

Court: Seizure Of DWI Vehicles Legal

Supreme Court Says Order Not Punitive
Posted: 8:14 a.m. MDT April 25, 2002
Updated: 8:41 a.m. MDT April 25, 2002

SANTA FE, N.M. -- The state Supreme Court has upheld the Albuquerque ordinance that allows the city to seize and sell the vehicles of some drunken drivers.

The high court issued the ruling Thursday.

The court said the ordinance does not violate the state and federal constitutions.

The challenge was brought by Albuquerque motorists who had multiple drunken driving convictions, whose licenses were revoked, and who were then arrested for driving with the revoked licenses.

After they were convicted of criminal charges in Metro Court, the city took them to state district court to try to get their vehicles forfeited.

The drivers argued that they were being punished twice for the same offense, violating their right of protection against double jeopardy.

But the Supreme Court said the ordinance is not meant to be punitive. Rather, it's meant to protect the public by keeping those multiple DWI offenders from driving again.

[ladylib]

Your car gets seized after one DUI in NYC. Even if the courts agree that you're innocent of DUI, good luck on getting it back.

[antidisestablishment]

Good start, now they need to shoot the drivers.

[mdittmar]

Message for drunk drivers:

Taxi!

[KrisKrinkle]

They'll get around to it. The car thing is just a start. Then they'll come for you.

[antidisestablishment]

NM has one of the worst rates of drunk driving--with multiple injuries. And I am not talking about the .08%, more like .25%! Fry them.

As for coming for me, it's a hell of a lot harder to cach a sober man. ;)

[AngrySpud]

The state should not profit from the seizure of private property. It would be better to dump the drunk's car into a scrap metal compactor ... with him in it.

[South Dakota]

The courts know that the law is BS but who has the money to fight it. Y'all think its ok to take the cars of a drunk or a drug user? laugh when they take your car for speeding

[KrisKrinkle]

At .25% won't they burst into flame instead of frying?

Actually, if they've killed someone or hurt them badly enough I don't have a lot of trouble with execution or long terms of confinement.

I have a problem with forfeiture of private property, expecialy when it was not part of the original sentence. Also, that kind of thing tends to grow incrementally.

If there's a need "...to protect the public by keeping those multiple DWI offenders from driving again," perhaps they should not be running around loose.

I don't think you and I are far apart regarding intent, but we differ as to means.

[antidisestablishment]

Probably not. I oppose confiscation across the board, but I have damn little sympathy toward repeat offending drunk drivers. I used to live in NM and too many innocents are killed by these fiends. The last one where we lived killed a mom and four little daughters. The perp hit them at 90 MPH and the bastard lived!

It is the same as our prison system--somewhere around 6-8% of all offenders commit 80% of all violent crimes. These repeat drunk drivers are the exact same. Show no mercy!

The problem with the drunk driving laws is that they have become a revenue generator, rather than a safety initiative. Lowering BAC counts doesn't save lives, but putting the real drunks away for life will. Unfortunately, such a focus won't add the all-important dinero to the state tills.