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 Remember the more letters they get the more likely this nonsensical law will be repealed.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

This is an idiotic law. Too draconian except in extreme cases. Better way to penalize and send a message would be to impound the automobile for a month or more. Impound it for even a year! Just lock it up with a Denver boot in your driveway. Or the driveway of the dummy who lent the car......

After seeing a friend of mine bury his wife and 3yr old daughter who were mowed down by a drunk one Sunday morning on their way to church, I say take the damn cars.

And as a mother with children on the roads everyday you won't see me shedding a tear cause some poor drunk can't find a car to drive home from the bar. A drunk driver is nothing more than a sniper shooting into a crowd.

Sounds like a good idea to keep drunks off the road

So how much of a first offender's property do you think it is a good idea for the state to steal? If stealing a car works, how about a house and car? Do you think there is a remote possibility of a frame or a setup to give the state and the police access to more property?

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.

Agree entirely, your behavior is your personal responsibility. Don't like it? Then move to another state or better yet, don't drink and drive. Too many people have already lost their lives at the hands of irresponsible drinkers.

Cry me a river, pal.

The truth is, I have been asking for this for a while, now. People can and will get behind the wheel of a car in direct defiance of the law, specifically the suspension or revocation of their license. Hell, Candy Lightner, the woman who founded MADD, was inspired to do so after a repeat drunk driving offender with a suspended license killed her daughter.

It seems to me you are advocating the commission of further crimes by people who like to thumb their noses at state drunk driving laws by continuing to do so sans a license. Sorry, but it will snow in Texas on the Fourth of July before that dog hunts.

Sounds good to me. If someone's such a POS as to endanger me and others by driving drunk, this is the least that should be done to them. Make up your mind what you want to do, newbie...keep your property, your drivers' license and your freedom, or have that one for the road. Grow up.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

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.

I fail to see why you are having problem with this. If someone that had a DUI, or drug charge conviction and left the scene of an accident where someone was injured or killed, and gets his or her license suspended or revoked and are caught driving they deserve their vehicles be taken away. I don't feel one bit sorry for them

DUI has become a money machine for the state and lawyers, and a prohibition propaganda vehicle for MADD.

Follow the money.

The deaths from drunk driving have an AVG. BAC of .18. That was the level when the law allowed .15, that's the avg. now that its .08. What they've done is made criminals out of normal behaving social drinkers, who are no more a threat than a tired driver, an 80 year old driver, a mother in van w/3 kids fighting, lane changing cell phone drivers, etc, etc.

More people die each year in swimming pool accidents. Let's ban/or regulate swimming pools. There are dangers everywhere in the world, crossing the street can be dangerous; we don't need the gov. micromanaging every facet of our lives and profiting from normal behavior.

The best solution I've seen is in Cancun...non-stop 24 hours buses going each direction to and from bars, 50 cents each way. There's no reason to drive at all. States will never do it because their concern isn't lives, it's money....they would lose a fortune in revenue.

Everybody feels bad for lost lives, but people die in accidents everyday in 100's of different ways. They should make up to .10 impaired with a small fine, and .15 or more automatic jail time.

I can't completely agree with you on this issue. There is no one, repeat, no one in this country who gets there license without knowing about drinking and driving and the laws in their state that pertain to it. These laws usually make up a significant portion of the written exam for a drivers license as well as all the media exposure to it (regardless of where your stance is on a particular limit). That being said, there is absolutely no reason to drive drunk. Period!

Those who choose to drive on a suspended license should get whatever the punishment is. There are too many people who ignore a suspension as it is. If the threat of taking their car away might make them pause a minute and consider their actions, then good. Personally, I don't think the government should sell the cars, however. I think they should be publicly crushed into as small a cube as possible and then mandatorily displayed on the front lawn (or other suitable location) of the offender.

Yes - That is one of the main problems with this law. In addition, it seems like everyone here is missing the point. I am not advocating drunk driving. I am making sure the "social drinker" doesn't get caught in the crossfire as a result of this law! There seems to be no distinction between the "social drinker" who is not drunk and drives and the true "drunk driver". These two categories are being lumped into one. According to the law, a 90 pound woman who has two glasses of wine over a two hour period can be at .08 (above the legal limit), even if her motor skills and consiousness doesn't affect her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. But she can be caught by an officer of the law for a minor traffic violation charged, convicted given a criminal record, and have her vehicle taken away from her, for causing no harm to anyone. We are targeting the wrong group of people by the current set of laws! In addition there are more advocates who now say reduce the limit even more, which would do nothing but catch more victims for the new business of "catching more drunk drivers" the govt seems to be engaged in.

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.