Posted on 03/15/2007 12:59:56 PM PDT by pissant
Kicking off a new crackdown on drunken driving in New York City, police officers seized the cars of three drivers late Sunday and yesterday -- including one from a Staten Island librarian with no prior arrests and another from a 57-year-old Queens man with a long record of driving while intoxicated.
The seizures came as Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani hinted at how tough the crackdown might be, saying that even those ultimately acquitted of drunken driving in criminal court could still face the prospect of losing their cars through proceedings in civil courts.
"Let's say somebody is acquitted, and it's one of those acquittals in which the person was guilty, but there is just not quite enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt," the Mayor said. "That might be a situation in which the car would still be forfeited."
Civil libertarians promised legal challenges to the new policy, which is considered among the strictest against drunken driving in the nation. But the first round of seizures suggested that the city would not shy away from confiscating the cars of drivers whose blood-alcohol level was at or above the legal limit and gave an early glimpse of what drivers in the city could expect.
In one case that was held up by prosecutors as a model of how the program could work, the police arrested and seized the car of Francisco Almonte of Corona, Queens, who had been arrested eight times for drunken driving and was on probation for his last conviction.
Mr. Almonte, 57, was involved in an accident on Sunday night, and was arrested at 6:15 P.M. after a Breathalyzer test indicated that his blood-alcohol level was 0.19, almost double the legal limit of 0.10 percent, prosecutors said.
Four hours later, in Brooklyn, the police arrested Pavel Grinberg, 28,
(Excerpt) Read more at iulaw.indy.indiana.edu ...
***************
Does it matter who we elect as president, then?
No, he was after a bite of the banana if the court did give him the apple.
Giuliani is not the mayor. Why is he talking about this?
What he said is fascist.
And he wants to be president?
But a President should be a LEADER first and foremost. And Giuliani has proven himself to be a very good one...personal politics or positions held aside.
All I'm suggesting is that all these Bash-Rudy threads are getting over-the-top, IMO. If he ends up the GOP Nomineee, I'm voting for him.
I will not sit home and sulk on Election Day in protest. For the alternative is going to be HELL.
************
I think that's going to be a tough decision for many of us. My hope is that he will not be the nominee.
He had an opposition City Council in NYC.
That should ease your conscience.
I read the article, and I hate to inform you, but there are many laws at the state and federal level that allow the goverment to seize property from someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime. That doesn't make the laws fair or just, but they are on the books, they have been upheld by the courts, and they have been frequently used by President Reagan and other Republican administrations.
**************
Faced with Hillary or Rudy, I would be holding my nose regardless.
Rudy is a lawyer. He knew EXACTLY what he was saying.
Acquittal of a criminal offense is done under the "reasonable doubt" standard. Basically, if there is any problem with the evidence or procedure at all, you get off. There has to be about 100% certainty, at least in theory.
A civil case is done by "preponderance of the evidence." That only requires 50.1% probability that the guy did the crime. You can be acquitted in the criminal case and convicted in the civil case AND YES, LOSE YOUR CAR. OJ could tell you all about this.
The people wailing and moaning about "property rights" on this thread don't seem to understand these concepts. Unfortunately, in a one-sentence quote, Mr. Giuliani didn't have time to explain all this. I'm impressed by the quick smear job being done on Rudy here, though. Quite impressed.
This doesn't trouble me one iota. Go ahead and vote for someone else if you can't understand stuff like this.
I agree with you. Most of these types of laws were enacted to fight organized crime and drug trafficing, but have been extended to other situations. LEO like forfeiture laws because when they sell the property, the proceeds go back to the LEO agency to buy tanks, anti-aircraft guns, submarines, and other expensive toys that they will never need to use (of course I'm exaggerating). BTW, how many conservative judges sided with the land grabbers in Kelo?
And from what we have seen here, Rudy AGREES with the current situation. And that's a major strike against him.
Like I said in my earlier posts, similar forfeiture laws were frequently used against people who had not been convicted of a crime, by Presidents Reagan and H. W. Bush, and I am nearly certain they have been and are being used by the present adminstration.
Post a thread on EPA or Clean Air and I will show you there, it does.
I totaly agree with you. The Delaware law used to be worse, you could lose your driver's license if you were riding a bicycle drunk.........that did eventually get changed.
The only reason I am so familiar with the Delaware law is primarily because it went into effect the week before I moved there and I moved there for a job - as a radio news person coverng the legislature!!!
Does the gov't get to try you in civil court after they fail in criminal court? No. Ask OJ alright. He was brought to civil court by the victim's families, not the state.
I'm guessing you are not a lawyer, but play one on TV.
If they are found not guilty, they should be treated like anyone else who is found not guilty. Doesn't mean I like it, because we all know guilty people get off all the time. But the alternative is scarey.
You guess wrong.
So if Rudy become President, he's talking all our cars away?
Yes, big bad ol' Rudy is coming for all our cars! Quick, vote for Duncan Hunter to keep your cars!
United States
The phrase "double jeopardy" stems from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is intended to limit prosecutorial abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense, as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in harmony with the common law concept of res judicata, which prevents courts from relitigating issues and claims that have already been the subject of a final judgment.
There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
This law is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality, because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. For example, were police to uncover new evidence conclusively proving the guilt of someone previously acquitted, there is little they can do because the defendant may not be tried again (at least, not on the same or substantially similar charge) Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962).
Though the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well, through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Benton v. Maryland.)
Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial once the jury and alternates are impanelled and sworn in. In a non-jury trial, jeopardy attaches once the first evidence is put on, which occurs when the first witness is sworn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.