Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Recent Comments
Popular Links & Greg Solano's Short Stories
Posts
Gregs Twitter Updates
Facebook Badge
Labels
- Blog (21)
- Bloggers (1)
- Celebrities (5)
- City Police (18)
- City Politics (5)
- Community (54)
- County Democratic Party (6)
- County Politics (9)
- Crime (48)
- Crime Prevention (30)
- D.W.I. (12)
- Democrat (10)
- Drug Legalization (8)
- Drugs (15)
- Education (6)
- Family (11)
- Funny Friday (36)
- Governor Bill Richardson (16)
- Helping Others (3)
- Holidays (21)
- jail (15)
- Juvenile Crime (3)
- Law Enforcement (86)
- Local Politics (91)
- Lt. Governor Campaign (17)
- Media (42)
- Memorial (22)
- My Life (61)
- National News (23)
- National Politics (29)
- prison (3)
- Red Light Camera (18)
- Republican (2)
- Sheriff Greg Comic (3)
- Sheriff Joe Arpaio (7)
- Sheriff's (19)
- Snow Storm (1)
- State Politics (64)
- Terrorism (2)
- Undersheriff Robert Garcia (16)
- Writing (10)
Links
Blogroll
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(114)
-
▼
January
(14)
- State of the Union 2006
- D.W.I. Forfeiture Ordinance
- Political Protests
- What me? A politician?
- Comments now allowed on this blog.
- Dr. Sex Graffiti Trial
- Mayoral Politics and Sign Wars
- Long hard hours for Sheriff's Investigators
- The Mayors race and making friends on the campaign...
- Death of C.O.P.S. program hurts nation.
- Things heat up on the way to the roundhouse.
- New Blog Template
- Book Signing with Michael McGarrity
- My First Blog Post
-
▼
January
(14)
Lefty Blogs
Blogarama
Politics Blog Directory
2 comments:
I'm a DWI lawyer in Albany NY. Like many forfeiture proposals, this is grotesque. I won't bother addressing the unfairness when the driver is the owner. But for when the driver is not the owner, this proposed ordinance is grossly unfair. The standard for forfeiture is whether the owner had knowledge that the driver would be driving the car. Not, by contrast, whether the driver would be driving the car while intoxicated.
In any case, forfeiture laws always seem to lead to the police profiting from the forfeiture. In our area, there is one particular police chief who drives a nearly new BMW that was confiscated in a drug case.
We have enough problems with police corruption. This simply creates more incentives for police to do bad things.
The ordinance is written in such a way that innocent owners may keep their vehicle provided they sign an agreement that if the same driver is found driving on a revoked license (revoked for DWI) or driving drunk in the same vehicle the vehicle would only then be forfeited. Thereby allowing even another chance for the family and friends to keep vehicles out of the hands of repeat offenders. All moneys from the forfeitures that do not go towards the cost of the program itself will go (by ordinance) to treament and prevention programs. The goal is not to take cars it is to give families and law enforcement tools to prevent drunk driving. Under no circumstances will I be driving anything other than my government purchased police unit. We have never kept confiscated vehicles for anything other than undercover use and even then only under a limited basis. Thank you for your comments.
Post a Comment