Seizing Drunk Drivers’ Vehicles is Unconstitutional
At least, that’s what A DuPage County judge out of Illinois ruled last month. According to an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times,
A DuPage County judge ruled that Illinois’ vehicle forfeiture statute gives the state too broad of authority to impound vehicles, particularly in cases where a vehicle’s co-owner loses a car despite not being charged or where an accused offender faces only misdemeanor charges.
The case stems from claims by three men charged with multiple counts of drunk driving. They alleged a nearly decade-old state law did not give them the ability to make a case with judges for getting back their seized vehicles until their cases went to trial years later. [source]
I’m not sure I’m understanding this correctly- I mean, I can see the point of the argument being made, but the last time I checked, people with a drunk driving record of any sort probably don’t need to be driving.
No doubt, the ruling in this particular case probably did a little more than surprise anti-drunk driving advocates and onlookers. If someone is having their vehicle seized, it’s not because the police officer has anything against them; it’s because they are a REPEAT OFFENDER. How many more people have to suffer at the hands of drunk drivers before the point is made?
Don Ramsell was the brilliant motorist’s rights attorney who achieved this result.
The solution is to make the second or third occurance of drunk driving a felony… That should give the courts the right to seize the vehicles of repeat offenders.
Here in Idaho, as I understand it, the third offense inside five years is a felony. Prison time is almost a sure thing though they are not smart enough to seize the vehicles along with that prison time….If I were elected king, the first offense would cost at least the vehicle being driven.