Car Seizure Law Angers Hispanics

Chicago Tribune | January 16, 2004 | Daniel Gibbard, Ginny Skweres

[tom paine 2]

Waukegan's tough car-seizure law has netted $2 million and improved safety in its first year, city officials say, but some Hispanics complain it disproportionately affects them.

The ordinance allows police to seize the car of a person accused of drunken driving or committing a felony such as selling drugs or prostitution. But it also allows seizure for what some activists say are relatively common offenses such as driving without a license or without insurance.

[hopespringseternal]

Who is really being punished? That would depend on who actually own's the vehicle. How many people own their vehicle outright?

When the vehicle is sold, the interested parties (bank) are paid first.

I just can't see accepting the arbitrary situation and potential government abuse that this will eventually lead to.

Well, I am not proposing this in a vacuum. Currently, vehicles are seized on accusation. I am just saying the seizure shouldn't happen until they are convicted. You can certainly impound the vehicle on accusation, but it has to be returned. That is not seizure.

[hopespringseternal]

Steal a bagel, lose everything? Better write your representive if you want the draconian laws you desire.

Oh, get off it. I was talking about a hypothetical punishment, not wishing for it. Find some other windmill to tilt at, Don Quixote.

[CSM]

"When the vehicle is sold, the interested parties (bank) are paid first."

Vehicles seldom are valued higher than the debt owed. The bank would take a loss 90% of the time, however we could solve that by giving them a gov't grant to cover the difference.

Yes, seizure upon conviction is better than upon accusation. I still think both are bad. Seizure will lead to generation of revenue already spent by the budget mongers.

[Protagoras]

Oh, get off it.

This from the person who implied I was a convicted felon. Great stuff.

[Protagoras]

I apologise, wrong thread.

[R. Scott]

Driving without insurance or without a license is a scourge in many parts of the country. Anyone caught doing either should have his car impounded.

You’re right, and with the recent SCOTUS ruling we can expect to see more random roadblocks, searches and “papers, please” law enforcement. It would take little expansion of the confiscation authority already granted via the War on Drugs to allow for confiscation of private vehicles for anyone driving without insurance or without a license, or failing to get inspected, or failing to pay property tax, or …

[FITZ]

Hispanics complain it disproportionately affects them

Same thing happens back home in Mexico --- you get in an accident or driving without a registered vehicle --- it gets impounded.

[Cultural Jihad]

Gee, illegals are worried they might lose their cars...

Where was there any mention of anyone's legal status? If Tom Tramcredo were of Hispanic descent and had his car confiscated for drunk driving, supposedly we could label him an illegal alien, too, eh?