New vehicle confiscation law - Outrageous

My friends and colleagues, I know you are all very busy with your lives but please read the following article carefully. This article affects every one of us who do not want to get caught into the trap of the state stealing your property and making your life a living hell, for what used to be a minor offense. We can all potentially get caught up in this web very easily.

Following the article I have posted my comments and a copy of the letter I sent to Governor Ryan, the Lt. Governor (she is sponsoring this insanity) , the Attorney General and the Secretary of State of Illinois and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

Please take the time out to write to these people and indicate you frustration with this unreasonable law which any one of us can innocently fall victim to. Remember the more letters they get the more likely this nonsensical law will be repealed.

You may copy my letter and send it to the e-mail's provided. Also please send this e-mail to everyone you know so we can bring some sanity back to the way legislation is being created that affect our daily lives.

CHICAGO -- Firefighter Scott Gillen did not die battling a blaze 18 months ago. He was killed at the hands of a drunken driver with a suspended license. A new law in effect July 17 is aimed at keeping drivers with suspended or revoked licenses from driving altogether, by allowing law enforcement officials to confiscate the vehicle for good, if they are caught driving.

"It'll give us some teeth," said Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan. "In the past, we had fines, we had people face jail time, and it didn't seem to stop these people."

County surveillance videos capture a sting operation to nab violators who promised a judge they wouldn't drive, but then walked out of the courthouse and got behind the wheel. More than 200 arrests have been made so far. County officials said the new law will help.

The legislation applies to violators with convictions for DUI or drug charges, leaving the scene of an accident where someone was injured and reckless homicide.

Until now, four convictions could get a violator's car confiscated. Under the new law, it is a one-strike you're out deal -- a prospect that drew mixed reaction on the streets of downtown Chicago.

One Chicagoan told Tutman, "If you're driving on a suspended license, yeah, take the car. Lock 'em up."

"I don't think it's particularly reasonable," said another. "You spend your money on your car. You have a suspended license, you should pay fines but the car is a lot more than fines."

Tutman reported that officials say the message now is that if you thumb your nose at the judge, you could be thumbing a ride from here on out.

Sheahan said the warning should also go out to friends. If you loan a driver with a suspended license your car, that car can also be confiscated for good. In a case like that a judge will have the final say on the disposition of the car.

This is the most outrageous law that has been passed in Illinois so far. Now under the guise of DUI the state can steal your car from you, even if you weren't the one driving it. Instead of solving the problem of real drunk drivers this is only going to railroad many other innocent social drinkers and ruin their lives. By the way the legal limit in Illinois is .008 (about 2 beers an hour) and you can be arrested if your limit is .005 (1 beer an hour). Any sane person knows this limit is too low to be charged with what amounts to be a serious crime.

The most important aspect of this law is the fact that the state can seize your personal property (your vehicle), even for first time offenders. It is blatantly unconstitutional for the state to do this. In addition, the state says this method will stop drunk drivers. But how? Repeat drunk drivers don't stop even after going to jail for a long period of time and coming out. Do you think they care if you take away their car? They'll just go out and get another one. We also all know the State of Illinois is having trouble balancing their budget. What a great and easy way to bring in some cash to try and do that, by targeting anyone who has a drink and drives.

The biggest downfall of this law is that it doesn't address the social drinker who may have a couple of glasses of wine over dinner and is stopped by a police officer for a minor traffic violation. The officer using his/her own judgment, determines if the person is DUI. The methods used to determine if the person is DUI is also unreliable. There are no standards for field sobriety tests and they vary by jurisdiction. In addition, the breathalyzer is also not an accurate instrument to measure one's blood alcohol level. If the breathalyzer was accurate, why wouldn't the state be promoting the idea of giving one to every potential drinker to test to see if they meet the legal limit to drive, before they leave any establishment where they had been drinking? Right now, as the law stands, not only does the person being charged with the DUI face fines, license suspension, and treatment programs, the person has a criminal record and loses one of his/her most valuable personal property, his/her automobile.

By the way, the state, courts, lawyers all make big money on a DUI. In addition, police officers get promoted for writing more DUI's. The average cost of a first offender DUI is $5000. Do you think any one of these institutions are going to have sympathy for anyone caught in this crossfire? They make their living off of making sure they catch you at a vulnerable moment where you may be in a gray area of the law. The other injustice in the process is that they automatically revoke your license for 6 months if you refuse the breathalyzer test. So you are already guilty without any solid evidence, if you refuse.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to see drunk drivers on the road killing people left and right. I just think that this law is not the appropriate solution to solve the problem. Laws should be formed with logic and reasoning, not with emotion, power and political clout.

Even murderers, rapists and drug dealers are given more rights than a person who may have had a couple of drinks and is trying to get home.

Please substitute the salutation for the appropriate e-mail you are sending it to: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Governor/ Secretary of State/ ACLU:

A new law went into effect July 17 is aimed at keeping drivers with suspended or revoked licenses from driving altogether, by allowing law enforcement officials to confiscate the vehicle for good, if they are caught driving. The legislation applies to violators with convictions for DUI or drug charges, leaving the scene of an accident where someone was injured and reckless homicide.

Until now, four convictions could get a violator's car confiscated. Under the new law, it is a one-strike you're out deal.

I am writing to let you know that this is the most outrageous law that has been passed in Illinois so far. Now under the guise of DUI the state can steal your car from you, even if you weren't the one driving it. Instead of solving the problem of real drunk drivers this is only going to railroad many other innocent social drinkers and ruin their lives. The legal limit in Illinois is .08 (about 2 beers an hour) and you can be arrested if your limit is .05 (1 beer an hour). Any sane person knows this limit is too low to be charged with what amounts to be a serious crime.

The most important aspect of this law is the fact that the state can seize your personal property, even for first time offenders. It is blatantly unconstitutional for the state to do this. In addition, the state says this method will stop drunk drivers. But how? Repeat drunk drivers don't stop even after going to jail for a long period of time and coming out. Do you think they care if you take away their car? They'll just go out and get another one.

Even murderers, rapists and drug dealers are given more rights than a person who may have had a couple of drinks and is trying to get home.

I appeal to you as a voter in good standing in the State of Illinois to push to repeal this law immediately!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

State Constitutional Officers Governor The Honorable George H. Ryan Office of the Governor 207 Statehouse Springfield, IL 62706 Phone: (217) 782-6830 Fax: (217) 782-1853 E-mail: governor@state.il.us Web site: www.state.il.us/gov Dear Governor Ryan, Lt. Governor The Honorable Corrine Wood Office of the Lt. Governor 214 Statehouse Springfield, IL 62706 Phone: (217) 782-7884 Fax: (217) 524-6262 E-mail: ltgov@gov.state.il.us Web site: www.state.il.us/ltgov Dear Lt. Governor Wood, Attorney General The Honorable Jim Ryan Office of the Attorney General 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62706 Phone: (217) 782-1090 E-mail: Contact via 'Submit Questions' Web site: www.ag.state.il.us Dear Attorney General Ryan Secretary of State The Honorable Jesse White Office of the Secretary of State 213 Statehouse Springfield, IL 62706 Phone: 1-(800) 252-8980 E-mail: Contact via 'Contact Form'

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois Executive Director: Colleen K. Connell 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 201-9740 E-mail: acluil@aol.com

I just think that this law is not the appropriate solution to solve the problem

Just curious. What do YOU think is an appropriate, effective solution to the problem?

It looks to me and if you joined FR with this subject in mind. Welcome. Now, as to defying a court order not to drive, which is what a license suspension is, you are indeed thumbing your nose at the court. It's easy to keep your car. Just don't drive it until the suspension is lifted. It's called taking responsibilty for your actions.

From shaggy eel's article

More than 25,000 vehicles driven by disqualified and unlicensed
drivers have been impounded at the roadside since tougher laws
were brought in as part of the photo driver licensing system in May
1999, and crash figures show New Zealand roads are safer as a
result.

I absolutely disagree with you on this issue. First the law only applies if you have a suspended or revoked liscense. No first time offender or "social" drinker will fall under this. You have to be a pretty serious alcoholic in most states to have your liscense suspended or revoked.

Second, the POINT of the suspension is to keep those fools off the road where they are a mortal threat to others. I see people injured by drunken drivers almost every day on my job. Frankly, I would make driving with a suspended liscense while intoxicated a jail quality felony. Enough is enough.

Treatment, education, and treating "drunk driving" as a health problem versus making it a criminal issue. Maybe encouraging the public by giving them more tools to avoid them getting in the situation in the first place. Such as an accurate(if there is such a thing) hand held brethalyzer to check their limit before they drive. I don't see how increased criminal penalties is going to solve the problem. In addition, by not advertising the consequenses enough and slipping in extreme, unconstitutional penalties such as confiscation of one's personal property, the state is doing nothing but making money on unsuspecting drivers who may be "actually be in control while driving", but legally over the limit.

If you are correct - then I agree with you. But from what I was told by various people, this law also applies to "first time offenders" for DUI's. The person's license doesn't necessarily have to be suspended to get your vehicle confiscated. Nor do you have to be thumbbing you nose at the judge, as the article suggests.

Treatment, education, and treating "drunk driving" as a health problem

You may be at the wrong forum. Perhaps
the enablers at democratic underground
would be more sympathetic.

Let me guess.

You live in Chicago. Last Saturday evening you loaned your car to your boyfriend so he could go to the store and get a "few more beers".

Neither your car nor your boyfriend came home. Your boyfriend was released from the Cook County jail Sunday morning with a ticket for DUI and now your car is gone. You'r pissed.

Did I guess correctly?

Drinking may be a health issue, but drunk driving is a criminal conduct issue. I don't care if one gets stoned every day of their life, as long as they don't then engage in dangerous behavior.

You're absolutely wrong! I'm doing this so we can protect our rights to our personal posssessions (in this case our vehicles). When a law goes to far as this one does- someone needs to make light of it.

I have a few concerns with this law, but don't know enough about it to know if they have been addressed or not.

Judicial review and due process for car owners
Permanent confiscation or impound?
What happens if they are driving someone else's car?

I'm all for impounding cars of those who violate court orders not to drive. WOD-style seizures without due process definitely need to be guarded against, though.

the state is doing nothing but making money on unsuspecting drivers who may be "actually be in control while driving", but legally over the limit.

,,, the State is actually taking steps to protect law abiding drivers from being killed by losers who tank up and get behind the wheel. I think that's justice for those who obey a law based totally on common sense. The penalty is no surprise - the warning's there for those who want to try it out. Sympathy escapes me on this issue. I've got kids who will be driving a few years from now and I won't tell you what I'll do to them if I find they've been drinking and driving.

Sounds like a good idea to keep the drunks off the road, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if its the 1st DUI or the 5th, they're still a danger to everyone else on the road.

I lost a son at age 21 to a drunk driver. Repeat offenders SHOULD have the vehicle confiscated. And one more group. Those without insurance. My state, Missouri, has a law on the books making it illegal to drive without insurance, but it has no teeth. So, the insurance pool is smaller, making us legal drivers all pay more.

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.