Continuing from my previous posts about needed changes in Illinois' criminal laws (Shovel Attack Criminal Reforms - Part 2"), here's the third proposal:
Impound Drunk Driver’s Weapon of Choice, Their Cars — If a vehicle is used in the commission of a crime such as a DUI, or is involved in a wreck where a DUI citation is issued, or illegally enters private property (such as being parked in someone’s front yard), the vehicle should be impounded until the DUI case is resolved for the two-fold purpose of public safety by taking a drunk’s vehicle away from him, and securing assets for the court to take in the event that the suspect is unable to pay any fines or court-ordered restitution. If the vehicle title is held by a lender then they would only be able to secure the vehicle if they followed former repossession procedures.
Quickly now, tell me what's wrong with this proposal? Where are the holes that need to be plugged. Keep in mind that the vehicle used in by the drunk driver with the 11-year-old suspended license in my little incident has been driven since he posted bail and got out of jail. There are multiple vehicles at his house so this isn't the case of the only vehicle in the family.
Cross-posted at IllinoisHistory.com.
7 comments:
I would say you might run into a problem with innocent until proven guilty, but I guess it would be no different than holding a charged felon in county jail before while they are being tried.
It's more like when police take a gun as evidence. They don't give it back before the trial.
I'd much rather face a pedestrian under the influence rather than a driver under the influence.
This is a more functional proposal, but there's still some serious logistical concerns out there.
In this case, the reality is you are still putting both the driver and the vehicle (or at least the vehicle, in any case) in "jail" until a disposition is made in the case.
First off, most police departments have limited impoundment capabilities. And DUI cases can take a while to go through the court system. And while it is happening, there are impoundment costs involved which add up quickly.
Also, DUI cases are no sure things.
Remember the recent scandals concerning vehicles impounded in Chicago where the impoundment fees accrued so quickly that the owners lost their vehicles, and many of the vehicles were sold for bargain basement prices to favored vendors.
What if there is a druken driving case where the end result is a dismissal or the prosecutor has evidence problems & has to drop the case? It might end up being a good 6+ months, and the end result being the DUI case goes up in smoke, and then who eats the vehicle impoundment costs?
1. Stick it to the person initially arrested for DUI (but not convicted)? On what basis - he's innocent.
2. Have the police department foot the bill? Oh yeah, that flys.
3. Maybe the Courts can find the cash. Not hardly.
Talk about a PR nightmare, there's one to consider.
And you just KNOW that there's going to be some case out there where there's some jacka** who 'borrows' a friend's/neighbor's/significant other's/family member's vehicle & gets busted for DUI, and now the friend's/neighbor's/significant other's/family member's loses their job because they can't get to work and the heartless law enforcement thieves 'stole' their vehicle and won't give it back because a DUI case is involved.
And just how do you think this type of situation is going to be played by the news media?
"...the heartless law enforcement thieves 'stole' their vehicle and won't give it back because a DUI case is involved."
Btw, I don't believe that, but I've seen way, way too much crap get spun just like that.
Making the Wheels Turn,
I haven't seen any comments on my first proposal from Saturday dealing with Secretary of State employees I would be interested in them.
As to the impoundment fees I understand where you are coming from, but I still think language could be narrowly tailored to fit, especially if we're talking about vehicles involved in accidents or arrests where the driver is also being charged with another violent crime, or is shown to be driving with a suspended or revoked license.
Well, a big problem exists when the driver isn't the sole owner (or even the owner at all), because an innocent third party gets punished.
Jon:
IANAL, but I have had occasion in the past to deal (on the fringe) with Federal forfeiture issues, including some vehicle forfeitures.
What you are calling "Impoundment", many, many others tend to look at as being "Forfeitures", and when you start playing with this issue (particularly vehicles), it gets really complex in a hurry. I can see entire DUI cases being filed and oriented to the vehicle impoundment as the primary goal, and there's a whole bunch of consequences of doing that.
One obvious (good) one is that the driver's at least theoretically off the road. One corresponding bad one is that the prosecutors end up filing overloads of charges to get something (anything) to stick, and judges really hate that happening, because it clogs up the court's schedules. And then when the Assistant SA turns around & drops half the charges, well, judges tend to get pissed off after a while at that type of behavior (looks to the judge like grandstanding by the SA).
I just don't see it as being a particularly easy solution to manage, and I can see all sorts of problems happening on a regular basis. If it was a really workable answer, odds on it would already being in place today.
My .02
Post a Comment