 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: ACLU Criticizes New DWI Seizure Ordinance |
 |
|
http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/4404872/detail.html
IMHO once you blow into that meter and you hit that magic number - that is due process
| Quote: | City: Impound Cars Now, Not At Trial
POSTED: 7:52 pm MDT April 21, 2005
UPDATED: 8:08 pm MDT April 21, 2005
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Albuquerque's new DWI seizure ordinance has some people asking whether it is legal to seize someone's vehicle without due process.
Civil liberties activists said Albuquerque's new DWI seizure ordinance interferes with citizens' constitutional rights.
Under the ordinance, the city can permanently take a first offender's car at the time of arrest.
Video
DWI SEIZURE
The city said it makes more sense to impound the cars now, rather than wait for the case to go to trial, which could take six to eight months.
The ACLU said that's where the constitutional problem comes up.
"What this ordinance does is penalize them first and sort out the details later," said Peter Simonson, executive director of New Mexico's American Civil Liberties Union.
"It's not practical and realistic for the city to impound cars at the time of the arrest and then wait to go to trial," said Stan Harada, assistant city attorney.
The ACLU is still analyzing the bill and is considering stepping in by filing an injunction.
Officers arrest about 700 drunken drivers every month. About 80 percent of them are first offenders |
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe it!
The ACLU may agree with me on something! Whoda thunk it! Well, I guess a broken clock is right twice a day.
| Quote: | | Under the ordinance, the city can permanently take a first offender's car at the time of arrest. |
If that statement quoted above doesn't frighten you, I don't know what would.
First, "an offender" is just that. Not been convicted, just accused. And last I checked, in the USA, an "offender" of anything is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Second, I might go along with this ordinance, if we were talking about a person who has been convicted (in a court of law), say twice before. But a "first" time offender? Not in the USA I know.
Pardon me, but that is so communistic I can't stand it. The socialist government wants to use any excuse it can to steal a person's property and demonize a "criminal" at the same time.
Nobody likes, nor approves of "drunk" driving, including me. But I draw the line on the powers of government to take property on an "accusation", especially of a "first time offender."
In some states, it only takes .08 to be "legally drunk." So, what does it take to "blow" a .08 or be legally drunk at that level?
Depends on your size/weight, but someone at 150 lbs. could "blow" that after TWO drinks. There are other factors, not all of which have to do with alcohol consumption, that could make a person "blow" a .08.
Excuse me, but just the "being pulled over" or "accused" should not automatically result in the government stealing a persons car.
This is just another way for the government to steal property by demonizing behavior we already abhor. Because they know that the public is more apt to go along with this stealing of private property if the victim is a "criminal."
BTW: What happens to those people who are just on the receiving end of making the wrong person mad in the city council or other local politician?
Lawyer costs could ruin anyone, but to also lose their car on a trumped up charge is down right communistic. And this sets the stage for more government takings of private property.
We need to have a JURY convict someone, and several times before I would ever go along with a "ordinance" such as this, that would take property without the JURY convictionS.
If these government types really wanted to do something about drunk driving, all they have to do is put them in jail. NO! They want private property, because that is what they are really after, not stopping drunk driving.
Think about it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Barbie I'm with ya. Ridiculous. Next we are going to have show passports to move state to state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
