When the law says they can take your car

Having your car confiscated for driving on a suspended license seems a little too harsh.

I guess the Napergate Man should feel quite lucky since the NPD did not confiscate his Hummer H2 that fateful day they caught him driving on a suspeneded license in downtown Naperville.

I don't know what all this fuss was about him being arrested and thrown in jail for a few hours. Or being separated from his dog, Abby.

They could have taken his SUV if they wanted. Maybe Sgt. Greg Bell is not that bad of a police officer. Once he realized it was his daughter who ran the toll, he gave him a break, and did not confiscate his H2. What more could the Napergate Man expect in the area of DISCRETION? That is major DISCRETION to his BENEFIT! I don't know what his Napergatian supporters and sympathizers were complaining about for months! The Man got a BIG BREAK!

If Sgt. Bell took his H2 and auctioned it last September that may have been the most expensive toll violation ever paid to the State of Ilinois. Or maybe the City of Naperville since they get all the money!

The NPD can be leniet at times. We need to show our appreciation for this leniency!

There are many unconstitutional laws in the US. If you carry more cash than an officer likes, for instance, it can be taken from you and you have to prove you came by it honestly.

If you visit any government building, as I did the other day to receive my US Citizenship, you first have to disrobe and pass through a metal detector in direct violation of the fourth amendment.

All it takes is for these kinds of laws to be challenged and to get a supreme court ruling on them. The only reason FOID cards are $5 and not $50,000 is that the authorities did not want a supreme court ruling tossing out the requirement to have a FOID card.

If everybody turning up for Jury service refused to disrobe for the metal detectors on the grounds that that contitutes an unreasonable search under the 4th amendment, that might result in some interesting case law.

Is this for real? Seizure of your car that can be sold at auction should you be picked up for DUI? Sounds very harsh given the fact that all the other punishments will also be tacked on....Loss of license, higher insurance rates, fines, penalties, embarrassment factor, listing in police blotter...etc. How would the police determine which cars to seize? I'm curious what judges think about when upholding this excessive penalty. I agree that drunk drivers are a menace to society but this knock down and punch out penalty would only make them more of a menace. I would support impounding your car on the spot of the violation but you or a family member should have the ability to retrieve it the next day. The Lawmakers have once again gone overboard. God help us!!

Reading the DUI/drug related deaths in the Sun over the years where a serial offender is driving with no license and DUI and murders people with their car, is confiscation of the car the best legal means of preventing the murder of innocents?

We (Naperville) have a consistent problem with people that have had their license revoked or suspended, no insurance etc. getting arrested multiple times by the police only to be arrested again a few weeks later. If the serial offenders have no cars, they can't continue to ignore the laws and jeopardize other drivers. Murders prevented?

Like all contraband, cigarettes are taxed differently state to state and possibly city to city. Cigarette smuggling does exist and is no different than smuggling other contraband items. The taxes from cigarettes are used to fund various government programs, so the smugglers are stealing from everyone. Boats carrying contraband are subject to search and seizure on the water, why not cars on the land?

DUI laws are unconstitutional for the most part, but it's all due to the work of special interest groups (mostly MADD) who get them pushed through the courts. We wouldn't tolerate this for any other offense on the books, why do we tolerate it for this?

Mr. Birkett, of course, claims this is NOT a revenue generating policy, but clearly, like cameras at intersections, it's all about ways of raising revenue while holding the line on taxes. It appears to me that government bodies have turned law enforcement and our court system into revenue generators so they can say they have held the line on taxes and are fiscally responsible.
In my 50 years of adult awareness, I have seen the law enforcement motto become "harass and intimidate" rather than "serve and protect." Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty." And, as you point out, the 4th Amendment is being shredded.

Naperville’s decision to seize the automobiles of drunk drivers seems to be a great idea, but I question the reasoning behind this. Taking away the vehicle may impede a second DUI from occurring, but all an individual has to do is get into another car. The DUI problem lies with the individual, and not the car or alcohol used.
Most of the DUIs in Naperville seem to occur in the heart of downtown Naperville. The NPD has a bicycle patrol that can watch people walk from the bar, across the streets, pass the waiting cabs, and into their vehicles. If only they could stop the drunks before they get into the car and start the engine. Not only could this prevent the DUI, but also more important, it could possibly prevent the accident that may or may not result in death. Priorities!
Naperville has a history of priding itself on the number of DUI convictions, almost bragging the “leads” it has in the county. It appears as if it is outstanding to have the most DUIs. It is ultimately the individual’s responsibility to not drive while intoxicated, but isn’t it the responsibility of NPD to prevent these crimes from occurring at such a large number of times?
These people still need counseling for an obvious problem, but it would be nice if we could keep them, and the rest of the residents, alive to benefit.
If this plan is to deter DUIs, and not a revenue builder, why are the proceeds going to a general fund? Why are the proceeds from DUIs not going to a successful program that tries to stop DUIs from occurring?

From Dave's post- "If this plan is to deter DUIs, and not a revenue builder, why are the proceeds going to a general fund? Why are the proceeds from DUIs not going to a successful program that tries to stop DUIs from occurring?"

Because the city of Naperville has absolutely no interest in deterring DUI's when they're such a money maker. Downtown Naperville has been built up to be a well-greased DUI machine. People come to town, spend money in bars or restaurants getting over-served where they are cleverly over-taxed thanks to the financial sinkhole that is the "cultural fund" then on their way out of town they're slapped with a $1000+ ticket resulting in fines and fees from every direction and now their car being sold.

If the city was at all interested in deterring DUI's they would put more pressure on the businesses they grant liquor licenses to stop over-serving their customers. I don't recall if Naperville was the #1 in Illinois or #1 in the nation in DUI arrests, but in my opinion that's not a sign of a good police force, that's a sign of a red light district that is completely out of control.

Want to put a stop to DUI's? Hold the owners of the bars/restaurants responsible for their patrons they're serving to the point of being so intoxicated they're not even capable of walking back to the parking garage. It's not like people are coming to town bringing coolers of their own beer. In my opinion, by allowing this "anything goes" nightlife to continue the owners, operators, bartenders and city council are all accessories to the murder of anyone killed by a drunk driver.

But, who am I kidding? Putting pressure on bar owners to stop over-serving would break the first link in to Naperville DUI machine... and if there's one thing this city loves more than anything else it's constant and dependable revenue streams.

I thought we lived in the United States? This is another example of Big Brother taking away our constitutional rights.Wake up people before we all end up in a communist country! Roadside safety checks,hemet laws, seatbelt laws, gun laws, are all examples of how the government is trying to run our lives.Nobody cares about losing their rights until it effects them. It is getting worse everyday and Naperville is the worst city for making sure all their little lemming citizens follow along with what they want to do.

Clearly the legislatures who made these laws had good intentions, but may have over stepped their bounds.

I look at the laws which allow cars to be confiscated in much the same manner as I look at the death penalty—the laws should be on the books but reserved for the most several circumstances. In the case of a DUI, for instance, I believe confiscating a car is too harsh for a first offense, but if someone shows they can’t control their behavior and commit a second DUI then their car (a weapon, really) should be taken away.

*********

Richard –

Congrats on gaining your citizenship, but perhaps you should re-read the Bill of Rights and keep in mind that no right is an absolute.

For instance, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, cause a stampede, and claim your First Amendment right to free speech. Also, while the Supreme Court recently ruled that DC couldn’t ban guns, they also said that DC could place reasonable conditions on gun ownership such as prohibiting felons from owning guns, requiring the guns to be registered, and banning guns in certain places such as schools. Thus your Right to Bear Arms can be restricted.

As for the 4th Amendment, you are not guaranteed to be free of ANY search. You are guaranteed to be free from an UNREASONABLE search. You may want to challenge the minor inconveniences of entering a government building, but I guarantee you’ll lose that fight.

T.B.

Something does need to be done to get drunks off the road, but I don't know about seizing cars.....

For being the land of the free, there are sure a lot of "rules" going around:

From the radio today - and it is up for consideration at Soldier Field: "The Kansas City Chiefs' Code of Conduct prohibits standing or obstructing the view of others." Now one can text the stadium authorities to have someone removed for standing up at a sporting event.

Dare to ask "what's next"?

Seems to me that this is a bit overboard for several reasons.

First, anyone charged and convicted of DUI is going to have a heck of a legal bill to start with. Then there is the loss of your licence and astronomical insurance rates if and when you get it back. Plus there is the cost of finding alternative means of transportation. And let's not forget the fine that will also be imposed. On top of all that we the people want to take the persons automobile? What if I loaned my vehicle to someone or it was a rental or leased vehicle... do the still confiscate and sell it off? This smacks as an additional and unfair fine for several reasons not the least of which is the obvious... no two people drive the same vehicle... one guy drives a cheap beater and another guy drives an expensive luxury car... they are not exactly getting "fair and equal" treatment for the same "crime".

Second, no wonder the Naperville Police have such a huge emphasis on enforcing DUI. I never realized this before, but this is a potential huge source of additional revenue for the city coffers and I don't for one minute believe that they have turned a blind eye to the lucrative collateral benefit of enforcing DUI.

Third, a lot of people who are arrested for DUI had addiction problems and a lot are not exactly at the top of the socio-economic ladder. If they are going to get treatment, stay employed, and beat their addiction I'm not sure giving them a sucker punch while they are already down is going to be a help in the right direction and may actually cause more problems, albeit probably not recognized or intended by those responsible for passing the law.

Fourth, one heck of a lot of the people picked up for DUI consumed the alcohol in a commercial establishment. The police and the prosecutors are not doing enough to weed out the bad apples among establishments that over serve patrons and turn drunks loose on the road. I, for one, would like to see more vigorous investigations of where DUI suspects have been drinking before the arrest and for the police and prosecutors to start taking these establishments to task for their hand in getting people too drunk to drive. Maybe if a few more liquor licenses were revoked the awareness among commercial establishments would improve. Right now establishments usually don't have anything to worry about unless someone gets killed.

What has happend to Naperville? It's in the process from converting from a nice suburb to another money sucking monster like Chicago.

Between adding in the red light photo cameras to generate a profit, and now seizing citizens cars and selling them for a profit, this is going overboard. Neighboring towns such as Bolingbrook have implemented similar plans for the purpose to reduce the problems, not generating revenue. Once the problems dramatically decrease, Bolingbrook removed their cameras. I doubt Naperville would ever remove theirs, even if the red-light runners and accidents dropped off.

When will Naperville start helping it's residents instead of constantly finding a way to take away their hard earned cash. Why aren't we trying to help more people in this age of unemployment and high gas prices? Naperville is begining to tarnish it's own reputation. Did you know you can't even go running or walk a dog in a park after dusk without getting a $75 ticket?

Really who comes up with these ideas? I wish there was a way to see the ideas these people we elect would come up with before voting for them.

And as for Joe Birkett, what ever happend to his son, the one recently arrested for drugs? Did they take his car away?

And as for Joe Birkett, what ever happend to his son, the one recently arrested for drugs? Did they take his car away?

Anonymous,
They did not take the Napergate Man's H2 for clearly driving on a suspended license. Do you think they should take Birketts son's car for less than a few grams of weed that were not even his but in an apartment he was visiting?

That would be an unequal application of discretion. We need to keep things in perspective and not abuse discretion!

Let us be fair! The Napergate Man caught a big break! Let Birkett's son catch a break too. He was probably a first time offender if he offended at all.

No one should lose their car simply because their Dad is famous or powerful! The same standard should apply to all.

Thank you TB. I'm well aware that the rights are not absolute and you have no right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. As with all the amendments in the bill of rights they prohibit the government from doing things - in the case of the 4th amendment search and seizure without probable cause - rather than allow people to do something. My point about the government building and courthouses is they have no probable cause whatever to search me simply because I wish to gain entry. I would love to see a test case where a person responding to a jury summons refused to be searched and was turned away, and the constitutionality of searching everybody like criminals could be put to the test!

Following on from the somewhat tepid response on this blog to the recent red light camera trials, where a surprising number seemed in favor, I'm very encouraged by the other responses here. Government will always try to grab as much money as they can. They are limited in what taxes they can raise so they turn to the motorist as a convenient source of cash. They are well down this route in the UK, where town centre CCTV operators will send you a ticket in the mail for stopping in a restricted area at 3 AM to read a map, or for driving 2-3 MPH over the speed limit.

While I have no time for anybody who drives impaired, we need to say NO to these powers and electronic/camera enforcement right now while they're still picking on 'unpopular' perpetrators.

Before long it will be your 80 year old mother who is being targeted by cash raising cameras or having her car seized and sold for some trivial infraction.

The only people in favor of this likely do not drive or work for the city.

I love this quote from "Drink Responsibly": "Naperville has been built up to be a well-greased DUI machine. People come to town, spend money in bars or restaurants getting over-served ... then on their way out of town they're slapped with a $1000+ ticket resulting in fines and fees from every direction and now their car being sold."

Yeah, Naperville is FORCING people to come to town, FORCING them to consume too much alcohol, then FORCING them to get into their cars and drive home.

While I think that seizure without a conviction is harsh, obviously a lot of people in that area have trouble knowing when they've had too much alcohol to drive safely. I don't think the car should be siezed until the conviction, but I'm torn with the balance of protecting others from these drunk drivers turning their cars into potential weapons by being impaired behind the wheel.

The restaurants don't know who's driving, who's taking a cab and who's walking or taking public transport -- don't try to put this all on them. People have individual choice. It's up to you (and other patrons) to choose to consume alcohol and then choose whether or not to get behind the wheel of a car and drive.

I agree with the idea that cops could stop patrons as they're getting into their cars and check them BEFORE they start to drive. That would prevent a dangerous situation before it starts.

Bottom line -- people need to be responsible. I'm really getting sick with this recent trend of saying "It's not my fault" and trying to blame one's decisions on another person, on the government, on a business, etc.

Richard –

This 4th Amendment issue is a bit off-topic, but I think it’s an important one because it relates to both unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, what the cops are doing in these car cases are seizures, not searches.

Literally, what the 4th Amendment guarantees is “…to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizure…and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause….”

The question then becomes whether the two clauses (the reasonableness standard and the probable cause warrant standard) are independent or whether they should be read together. That is, are the only reasonable searches those that are done pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause, or can there be reasonable searches done without a warrant?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#4

This site lays it out fairly well that the Supreme Court has struggled with this question for some time; however, it is clear that exceptions to the requirement for a warrant have multiplied. The most notable exception is that the cops may search you without a warrant if you are arrested.

The site goes on to state that “The most important category of exception is that of administrative searches justified by ''special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement.'' Under this general rubric the Court has upheld warrantless searches by administrative authorities in public schools, GOVERNMENT OFFICES, and prisons, and has upheld drug testing of public and transportation employees.” [emphasis added]

So as you can see, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are reasonable searches which do not require a warrant based on probable cause. More importantly, government buildings are specifically listed as one of these exceptions.

T.B.

This has virtually nothing to do with reducing drunk driving or increasing revenue. While 418 seizures sounds like it would generate a lot of money, the budgets of DuPage County and the City of Naperville pale in comparison. It would barely make a scratch in them. And less than 30 percent of the seizures were for DUI’s. Not a high percentage for what has been described as the point of the exercise.

The real purpose of this program is to direct a message to a certain group of people. With almost 65 percent of the seizures stemming from revoked or suspended license violations the target is clear. These types of violations disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. If you are poor or a minority, stay out of Naperville and DuPage County.

The facts make it abundantly clear. This is not an attack on drunken driving. This is simply and clearly a civil rights and profiling issue. This is not an attempt to keep our streets safe from drunk drivers. It is a bold and naked attempt to keep our streets clear of the poor and minorities. But simply removing a certain class of people to other counties and cities will not solve the systemic problems of our own communities. These people are not the problem.

Only when we accept that justice, compassion, and understanding will bring us more than incarceration, seizure, and fear will we be able to come together and solve the real problems that face us, our community, and our country. When we finally learn that pulling our fellow man up rather than pushing him away is what we must do. Because it is the right and just thing to do. Then, and only then, will we achieve the peace and well being that we all urgently seek.

"This is simply and clearly a civil rights and profiling issue. "

It certainly is a profiling issue. It profiles people breaking the law.

The problem with the seizure law and other DUI laws is that they are all feel good legislation. The lawmakers feel like they are doing something about the problem. They also have to vote for these laws or organizations like MADD will say they are supporting drunk drivers if they vote against this type of legislation. Any repeat drunk driver will just get another car and drive drunk again.

If they really want to have something besides feel good legislation, they need to make a law that has real deterrent value. Something like an automatic jail sentence for each offense. First offense weekends in jail, second offense 6 months in jail and so on. Once people realize a good lawyer isn't going to get them out of the ticket, they may stop drinking and driving.

I just have a problem with the profitability side of this. The city profiting off of your belongings is wrong. Why don;t they take the profit and do something good with it such as create a fund to help families with AIDS, critical health issues, unemployed and injured?

The city finds more ways to take your money, but not nearly enough to help it's people in need of it.

As for Joe Birkett - his son got off easier then any of our kids would have. Thats wrong as well. Look at hulk hogans son, they through the book at him.

Why don't they take the cash from the cars and buy Neuqua Valley another bell for the bell tower? It still hasn't been replaced.

Keeping drunk drivers off the street is a great idea. Should the State be allowed to STEAL an offenders car in order to ATTEMPT to accomplish this? No.

I don't have a problem with people having to forfeit their vehicles if they are used in the process of committing a serious felony, but taking cars away from people driving with suspended licenses, or even first time DUI's, is going too far. I also don't think the money obtained by selling the cars should go into the city's general fund. It should go to a charity, or be used in some other way that eliminates the temptation to use this procedure as a means of enhancing revenue.