Now civil forfeiture of vehicles for chronic drunk drivers

[Great68]

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Vi...483/story.html

Victoria police seize vehicles of two prolific drunk drivers By KATIE DeROSA, Timescolonist.com May 4, 2011

Victoria police have used B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Act to seize the vehicles of two prolific drunk drivers, a first in the province.

The legislation is typically used to seize proceeds of crime, such as cars or houses bought with drug money, but the department says its move sets a precedent that people who habitually drink and drive could lose their vehicles.

Steven Henry, a 30-year-old Victoria man, had his 1993 Honda Accord seized after being charged and convicted with impaired driving twice in less than two weeks in April last year, police spokesman Const. Mike Russell said.

Henry was also convicted of impaired driving for an incident last July. The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles revoked his licence for 10 months.

Police also seized the 1996 Chevrolet Suburban belonging to 63-year-old Saanich resident Anthony Raymond. Raymond was convicted of impaired driving after an incident on November 25, 2009, in which several motorists called 911 about his erratic driving. It happened just two weeks after he was arrested by Saanich police for driving dangerously on the Pat Bay highway.

Raymond had a blood-alcohol level that was three times the legal limit.

Solicitor General Shirley Bond applauded the move, which could set precedents for other police departments.

"It is clear that some drivers refuse to get the message that drinking and driving is against the law," Bond said in a statement. "That's one of the reasons why we have separate, civil forfeiture legislation that specifically targets vehicles and other property used in a way that endangers life and limb."

Police chief Jamie Graham said in a statement that the measure, along with the new immediate roadside prohibition legislation, sends the message that B.C. does not tolerate impaired driving.

Russell said while there is nothing to prevent these drivers from buying another car, "it sends a message that if you continue to do this, we'll continue to take your vehicle."

The tactic will be used to immobilize "those long-term offenders with horrendous driving records," Russell said.

In June, 2009, the province launched proceedings to seize a house under the Civil Forfeiture Act, after Victoria police became frustrated at their repeated calls there regarding drugs and prostitution. That file, which is continuing, was the first time the province had tried to seize a house under the Act.

kderosa@timescolonist.com

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

[Supafly]

This should have been instated a fucking longtime ago.....instead of the excessive speeding.

[TheNewGirl]

I am 100% behind this, about fucking time. It should come with a ban on owning another vehicle too.

[Great68]

What bothers me is that when the Civil forfeiture act was introduced its intent was to target the proceeds of organized crime.

Obviously now it's stretching beyond it's original target, showing that the law was written with such a broad scope that it seems like it can be applied in ANY instance as the police please. The worst thing is that there doesn't even need to be a criminal charge to apply it.

[TheNewGirl]

Great, I see your point. Though personally my issue with that is more about drunk driving convictions lacking due process, rather then cars being taken away from drunk drivers.

[Marco911]

Civil forfeiture law is written broadly enough that they can seize your vehicle even if you're a first time offender and just blow over.

This is how it starts: Have the media publicize they are going after the worst offenders to gain community support, then apply it to less serious offenders.

Take the example of the media publicity of 2 street racers in a Ferrari and M6 who had their car seized while racing during the day on a road with light traffic. Now we have a member here who is having his car seized for speeding excessively in the middle of the night on a hwy, where the risk to the public was very small.

[Leopold Stotch]

i'm glad this shit is happening now, i haven't been affected by a drunk driver, and i hope that i never do.

[firebird79_00]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

It should come with a ban on owning another vehicle too.

That i dont agree with, if you lose your license for a year why shouldnt you be able to buy a car and restore or mod it so you can drive it in a year

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Civil forfeiture law is written broadly enough that they can seize your vehicle even if you're a first time offender and just blow over.

That, combined with the fact that civil forfeiture is considered a civil matter so the onus requirements are much lower. It's all so bullshit, so open to abuse.

[asahai69]

Im sure you would see a lot less drunk drivers if cabs weren't so fucking expensive..........

[firebird79_00]

yup thats for sure, whos got $50 bucks to blow everytime from cabbing downtown

[CRS]

Originally Posted by asahai69

Im sure you would see a lot less drunk drivers if cabs weren't so fucking expensive..........

Originally Posted by firebird79_00

yup thats for sure, whos got $50 bucks to blow everytime from cabbing downtown

This just sounds more like poor planning than anything else.

[asahai69]

^ and imagine how many people dont plan well.

[Mr.Money]

yeah those shit bag's deserve their vehicle being taken way for drunk drinking but knowing those fuck's they would probably buy a Beater Car off craigslist for 1k & do it again in their retarded brain..

they should Take their driving license away,but either way they might just drive without one since some drunk people are Retarded

another thing i can say is the Police could be profiting from this too,the government will most likely Put the the Automobiles up for Auction..

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Take the example of the media publicity of 2 street racers in a Ferrari and M6 who had their car seized while racing during the day on a road with light traffic. Now we have a member here who is having his car seized for speeding excessively in the middle of the night on a hwy, where the risk to the public was very small.

In the street race, one of those two cars was going to be seized sooner or later, regardless of speeding/racing. The police took advantage of the situation by trumping it up as a street racing seizure when there was far more involved.

The guy on RS who got his car seized was slammed by RS members for refusing to give information when asked questions about what really happened. He has since disappeared.

If you're going to debate this issue, you should pick cases where you actually know what's going on, and not bits and pieces. Perhaps an actual court case where all the evidence (which would be public information) would be available.

[TheNewGirl]

Originally Posted by firebird79_00

That i dont agree with, if you lose your license for a year why shouldnt you be able to buy a car and restore or mod it so you can drive it in a year

Because I feel that someone with such poor impulse control that they drink and drive, is more likely to ignore their suspension and drive any way.

So I feel that if someone fucks up to the extreme that they get their car taken away, they should be banned from purchasing another vehicle until such time as their license is reinstated.

------------------

As for cheap cabs there ARE alternatives. Most bars have safe ride programs, there's transit (how late does the skytrain run now?) Or transit + cabs, there's designated drivers. There's LOTS of options that will get you home safely.

[dangonay]

There's one very good side to this people are missing.

There are a lot of lawyers (and even ex policeman) who specialize in helping those charged with drunk driving beat the charge. This is simply because there's a market for it (just like there's a market for injury claim lawyers).

Now that civil forfeiture has been attached to drunk driving those same lawyers will now also be challenging forfeiture along with cases of drunk driving. Which means civil forfeiture will now receive a lot of attention in court, where previously it hadn't. All we have to do is sit and wait for the first big case, and given the number of drunks on the road I see this being challenged very soon.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by dangonay

The guy on RS who got his car seized was slammed by RS members for refusing to give information when asked questions about what really happened. He has since disappeared.

If you're going to debate this issue, you should pick cases where you actually know what's going on, and not bits and pieces. Perhaps an actual court case where all the evidence (which would be public information) would be available.

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.

But you feel it's OK to slam a law because it has potential for abuse.

When someone loses their car for something as simple as speeding, then I'll be screaming that it's unfair as well. Until then I have no problems waiting to see the numbers and types of cases this gets applied to.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Mr.Money

they should Take their driving license away,but either way they might just drive without one since some drunk people are Retarded

License bans don't work, people drive anyways cause the risk of being caught is so low - what are they going to do? take your license away again?

I like the idea of taking their car for multiple drunk driving convictions, yet lets write it in stone: caught 3 times, your car is gone.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Regardless, I don't see it as legitimate that the government seizes private property over potential harm to society. Go ahead and seize property to compensate REAL victims if ACTUAL harm has been committed.

Government is there to provide safety to society, they should be eliminating potential harms. Your problem is that potential is loosely worded and open to abuse - yet from the examples so far I think the law is being applied very well with no abuse.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by dangonay

But you feel it's OK to slam a law because it has potential for abuse.

When someone loses their car for something as simple as speeding, then I'll be screaming that it's unfair as well. Until then I have no problems waiting to see the numbers and types of cases this gets applied to.

The law doesn't have a "potential" for abuse. It is being abused. It started out as a law to seize the illicit property of drug dealers who used the property to break criminal law and created actual harm to society. They are now applying this to people who break civil laws that aren't serious enough to be considered by the criminal court system and have questionable harm to society.

Even if a law is written poorly, as this one is, we depend on the checks and balances in our justice system. Someone charged with an offence by the police is presumed innocent until convicted by a court or jury of his peers. In the case of civil forfeiture, the forfeiture can occur even without being charged with a crime. The checks and balances written into the law are carried out by the same department that enforces it, which is a conflict of interest.

[GabAlmighty]

Gotta agree with Marco.

Soon, i'm not gonna be able to do anything without losing something that "supposedly" belongs to me.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Government is there to provide safety to society, they should be eliminating potential harms. Your problem is that potential is loosely worded and open to abuse - yet from the examples so far I think the law is being applied very well with no abuse.

A lot of German citizens said that when laws were written to confiscate property from the Jews too.

[DasHooch]

That's some straight up national socialism.