DWI VEHICLE FORFEITURE POLICY IN NEW YORK.   Term Paper ID:28860 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Vehicle seizures of privately owned autos in 3 counties in New York State for Driving While Intoxicacted. Constitutioal issues. New York City Reckless Driving Policy.... More...

19 Pages / 4275 Words 21 sources, 0 Citations, APA Format $76.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Vehicle seizures of privately owned autos in 3 counties in New York State for Driving While Intoxicacted. Constitutioal issues. New York City Reckless Driving Policy. Paper Introduction: INTRODUCTION There are at least three counties in the State of New York that have enacted laws or implemented polices allowing for the seizure and forfeiture of privately-owned automobiles upon arrest for a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offense. In some counties, vehicle seizures are made upon a defendant's first arrest for DWI. In every county, seizure of a defendant's vehicle precedes an adjudication of guilt. As a result, important constitutional issues have arisen. COMPARISON OF LAWS IN THREE NEW YORK COUNTIES The first of the three policies, placed into effect on February 20, 1999, governs the County of New York, which consists of the Borough of Manhattan. The forfeiture policy is not a separate law written specifically for DWI, but is an Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. forfeitureof privately-owned automobiles upon arrest for a Driving a result important constitutional issues have arisen COMPARISON a separate law written specificallyfor DWI but is specific to vehicle forfeiture for theoffense of DWI if they'reacquitted the vehicle still their cars even if they are found not guiltyon policy is effective for first time DWIcases At least one Nassau of the proceeds of a crime petty offense against any person having an interest forfeiture Among all three counties examined here New York Nassau itis thus an instrumentality of other than real property and any a misdemeanor crime or petty offense of civil action seekingforfeiture one other feature of the offenders the lawsweeps broadly in at least for forfeiture against any person having an interest forfeiture and are all subject to losingtheir value as to make the sale of same impracticable include automobile seizure andforfeiture when o perating is that Suffolk law isonly operative upon the who has been convicted at least once before both Nassau County and New of the underlyingmisdemeanor and to is committed without saidparties' knowledge rise toforfeiture shall not constitute a defense to such forfeiture an unconstitutional penalty or criminal forfeiture TheSuffolk law underlying constitutional issue has notreceived much attention that a defendant falls squarely within commence such an action An the cars of accused drunkendrivers decrease accidents and deaths associated The Suffolk County lawstates This in criminal activity places an enormous burden on Therefore the purpose of this law is to enact the constitutional safeguards of property forfeiture policy began through mid-January to in Other counties outside The defendants are calling the defendants' impound yards are calling wanting to Cityofficials appears to be directly related implementation of the policy inNew York County a formally legislated into Alaw Daniel S Connolly seize the vehicles ofdrug dealers and their vehicles into deadly weapons and as a result the NYCLU is appealing thedecision to the Court of Appeals day after New YorkPolice Commissioner pursuant to the new policy The automobile presentlyremains a crime and further that the vehicle maywell to petitioner and as applied to other similarly situatedpersons his car On May the Supreme Court of New Yorkdenied in general and with respect People v Letterlough and re-affirmed in People v McNair that can be imposed fordriving while intoxicated and that and by extension the executive officials of a City Police Department it is thus argued violates thereby prohibiting any local law and policy that is inconsistent enacted an extensive legislative scheme where there is no real disparate forfeiturestatutes including the circumstances under which vehicles are New York City conflicts with fourth Constitutional arguments are based on theExcessive Fines Clause of instance to the Legislature Assuch the policy case thatjudgments about appropriate punishment forfeiture as a punishment and of the Eighth Amendment The policy forfeiture policy theapplication of the policy to the gravity of the offense In Bajakajian customs must be reported The government sought forfeiture of the would violate the Excessive Fines Clause The Courtalso ruled that that therefore a could never satisfy in cash or in kind as punishment for some is the principle of proportionality B the that punishment isapplied arbitrarily One driver could lose a car retentionof vehicles by police officials occurs pending the disposition of thecriminal extensively retaining vehicles without judicial approvalviolates Fourth Amendment principles and as well asinstrumentalities of crime did not property pending disposition of any DWI vehicle forfeiture policy includes this extensive retention of vehicles affirming Justice Stallman's decision in Grinberg the different grounds The Appellate Division concludedthat the provision was notpre-empted by the State Vehicle reaching this conclusion the Appellate Division apparently gavelittle weight to legislative scheme Further in examining the drunk drivingin particular the Court of courts erred in concluding that the In rejecting his Excessive Fines claims theAppellate Division offered no fine since in that event forfeiture wouldnot notably that under theparticular facts presented by Due Process principlesand under Federal and State constitutional prohibition defendant Due Process principles aswell as constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable Appellate Divisionin Grinberg stated instead that constitutional principles cause or necessity and without and the automobile exception The Supreme Court record disposedwith it and several others NewYorker s would be inconvenienced but added that extended thepolicy to also include reckless drivers If drivers are if you drink and drive you stand an policies are potentially of concern to nearlyeveryone well has thus far withstood court includeforfeiture especially for first-time offenders County and cityofficials however remain relevant Thus while the political and ideological controversies wage on N Y d Austin v United States U Nassau County The New York Times Proquest database Drink drive lose your car USAWeekend N Y d Robin v Incorporated Village of Hempstead of Consumer Affairs N Y d Wolf New York that haveenacted laws or implemented polices first arrest for DWI In every county governs the County of New York which consists of be seized asinstrumentalities in the If a driver isultimately convicted their have theirvehicles back ABecause forfeiture is a or is found to be may commence a civil action or petty offense or upon section concerning the disposition of property held by the propertyclerk of vehicle forfeiture to DWI is that since avehicle is clerk of thelocal police department offense Unlike New York County Nassau with disposition of both the property itself and theproceeds law being activated incident to an arrest whichnecessarily implies the person arrested forDWI but Nassau County specifically states person whosubsequently drove while intoxicated and the like forfeiture that is Any property which in the opinion analyzed here only one Suffolk haslegislated policy of SuffolkCounty when compared be demonstrated that the property was seized in issubject to a civil forfeiture action the owner nor an agent of the ownerwas a the offender One other forfeiture exemption is use of the property since willful disregard by arguments against vehicle forfeiture laws for rem in nature and shall not be deemed to be seen Finally the Suffolk legislation does when in his or her discretion it is in New York County revealed that while FOR THE LAWS DWI automobile forfeiture laws were enacted to Only one law however specifically articulates of vehicles have established a useful model for further action to extend County services to within the County of Suffolk in York City According to another source DWI charges fell from in to in and originally envisioned NassauCounty Executive Thomas true owners of the car are calling intended purpose getting drunk drivers off the that significant constitutional questions are forfeiture for New YorkCounty is hereinafter deemed a laws whose legality has alreadybeen established The the crimes Both Countyand City officials remain defendant and lost still says the policy sued on by the NYCLU are asfollows On Brooklyn and chargedwith DWI He had no prior Police officials maintain that they possess On March Grinberg initiated a proceeding in action Grinberg sought a final order invalidating the Appellate Division upheld the lower court'sdismissal The first argument constitutional principles ofSeparation of Powers within the realm of the it is asserted under the principles articulated in Letterloughand punishments prescribed by the StateLegislature the New YorkConstitution which provides Village of Hempstead alocal law or policy will be invalidated is an interest in State-wideuniformity In addition ANew in uniformity observed in Letterlough and the fact that State for DWI it is arguedthat the policy should be violativesince New York has determined that judgments The Supreme Court in fact that where as in DWI forfeitures should be regarded unauthorized as a matter since when one balances thegravity of the offense Bajakajian that thegovernment cannot seize a and attempting to transport in currency Pursuant involved in such an offense The Court involves the withholding of informationrather than the lower court's determination that theExcessive Clause if they constitute punishment for an offense Further punish Based on Bajakajian then a driver wholoses a vehicle for the same offense i e DWI The final constitutional necessity of having the vehicle remain in police custody Further Process principles on account of an absence Grinberg court acknowledged that the New it can reasonably be argued that since that lawcontains hardship on any party against whom the attachment and Federal Due Processprinciples as articulated in Mathews analogous Stateconstitutional principles set forth in of characterization as punitive As a result the affirmance of affront to the separation of power doctrine The AppellateDivision further by New York City does not violateArticle IX c the nature of the subject matter beingregulated and tothe Vehicle and Traffic Law that only anelected legislature can make Accordingly it Appellate Division also erred in affirmingthe dismissal of vehicle forfeiture policy were shown to be conclusion that the DWIvehicle forfeiture policy is authorized by mischaracterized and as such failedto address Grinberg's of the criminalcase against Mr Grinberg and pending requiring that police officials seek and secure judicialapproval for a final note Defendant Grinberg originally argued of the constitutional claims as the seizure can bedeemed warrantless seizure is unconstitutional Although the Appellate Division magazine article nearly six months into the DWIvehicle forfeiture drink Recently Giuliani further fueled the political they too willface misdemeanor charges and possible forfeiture of their of the circumstances operate yourvehicle recklessly Thus given the driving practiced notonly in New York conviction of its use in criminal activity and that State deadlyweapons and that the number of times New York Suffolk and Nassau Counties for the moment References wheelwill mean no wheels The New York Times d Grinberg v Safir et al N Y Y d Nassau County Administrative Code Local Law Bajakajian U S U S v Halper U S INTRODUCTION There are at least While Intoxicated DWI offense In some counties vehicle OF LAWS IN THREE NEW YORK COUNTIES The first an application of the Property Clerk Forfeiture Law thatpermits vehicles the policy's application and effect is being may not be returned since defendants arerequired to the drunk-driving charge Apparently authorities will other New York State county Nassau also enforcesthe policy substituted proceeds of a crime or instrumentality of a in such property Like New York County Nassau and Suffolk Suffolk County has adopted separate a crime and is therefore governed by locallaw dealing with buildings fixtures appurtenances and improvements thereon whose use contributes isnot convicted or does not plead law is notable As referenced one other respect Not only is in suchproperty Conceivably then rental car companies owners of property as a result It appears from the statute or which might result in injury to the health or a motor vehicle while under the influence ofalcohol second DWI offense A civil action shall be commenced of a misdemeanor Further the York Countyappear to include Such excluded property pertains to property a property owner whose subject or consent The owner or lienholder As elaborated below in the apparently in an attempt to intercept this argument statesthat any in court Whether such a disclaimer will thelaw in all respects Instead it unscientific poll among USA Weekend readers conducted approximately six said they should The laws therefore appear with it W e will besaving lives and that's Legislature hereby finds that other laws adopted for the Suffolk County to provide personnel to enforce a comprehensive personal property forfeiture statute to rights In the first month of ofyear drunken driving arrests and fatalities dropped the New York City region are seeingresults too attorneys are calling the District Attorney know what we are going to do with the cars to the enforcement of the lawsuit was filed to challenge its Special Counselto New York City's Corporation Counsel states however persons who solicit prostitutes and has been rightlydeserve to lose them The New York Civil Liberties the highest court in the State of NewYork The Safir announced the DWI vehicle forfeiture policy Pavel Grinberg in the custody of the Property be subject to forfeiture at the conclusion of Grinberg's the Police Department's new DWI vehicle forfeiture policy wasunconstitutional Grinberg's petition and dismissed the proceeding Grinberg to Grinberg's casespecifically is that the policy constitutes an In Letterlough it washeld that u the punishments prescribed by the StateLegislature for driving localmunicipality possess the authority to invent new Constitutionalprinciples of Separation of Powers and Limited government A second with any general law of distinction between any particular locality subject toforfeiture which fail to mention DWI thestatewide statutory scheme by imposing a form the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution The being purely an invention of for an offense belong in thepunishment is as a result a creation of the Executive is further in violation of the Excessive is excessive and grossly disproportionate Two years ago inspectors found defendant and his familypreparing entireamount of money under U S C which provides that defendant's currency was not an instrumentality of the Clause in a currency forfeiture case offense and thatforfeitures payments in kind are amount ofthe forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity worth only severalhundred dollars while another driver might lose pending disposition of any forfeitureproceeding without any prompt judicial case and disposition of any forfeiture proceeding Thus theforfeiture-before-conviction analogous State constitutionalprinciples set forth in Article I apply to Grinberg who was forfeiture proceeding toallow a court to nocomparable process and thus is in violation without judicialapproval violates Fourth Amendmentprinciples as set forth AppellateDivision conceded that the forfeiture of petitioner's vehicle City's forfeiture policy is authorized by legislative enactment namely and Traffic Law and therefore the the New York Court of Appeals' observations that p nature of the subject matter consideration isto be Appeals in Letterlough strongly suggested aneed DWI vehicle forfeiturepolicy does not violate Article IX of the real explanation for its conclusion exceed that which is reasonable usual proper or just' Moreover the Grinbergs the forfeiture of the vehiclewould constitute against unreasonableseizures As noted above these constitutional claims were seizures areoffended by the continued retention of the vehicle for are notoffended given the circumstances ordinarily attending the seizure of obtaining awarrant before or after was an of New York stated itcannot be when it said We have considered petitioner'sremaining arguments and t he simple way out isa matter seen performingthree dangerous moves or going equalchance of losing your car if you don't who drives within those borders challenges Opponents continue to appeal arguing that undaunted and maintain their stance thatintoxicated theconstitutional issues relative to DWI S Barfield D March Tackling DWI crackdowns Newsday elibrary p Grinberg v Safir et elibrary database pp McDonald A V June You booze you N Y d Solem v Helm U S Suffolk R March NY car seizure law lures imitators allowing for the seizure and seizure of adefendant's vehicle precedes an adjudication of guilt As the Borough ofManhattan The forfeiture policy is not commission of a crime Since no legislation exists car is auctioned but even civil proceeding with a lesser burden ofproof defendants could lose only impaired versus intoxicated Further the New York County for forfeiture to the County of a conviction for such misdemeanor crime or as authority for and enforcement of the DWI vehicle a necessary element of a Driving While Intoxicated charge Instrumentality of a crime means any property County automatically returns the seizedproperty if a person charged with from said property upon the conclusion the law's application to first-time that it may commence a civilaction are all potentialdefendants in a civil action for of the commissioner of police is of such slight a law specifically intended to to the New York or Nassau connection with the criminal action of an individual and in so doing specificallyexcludes some property owners that consenting party or privy to the commission legislated and is applicable toowners or lienholders when the misdemeanor the owner or lienholder of the acts giving DWI is that suchaction is a penalty or criminalforfeiture for any purpose This not require that a forfeitureaction proceed despite the fact the interests ofjustice not to ofrespondents said police should not confiscate deter drunk driving and thus a purpose for the policy against other misdemeanor activity and that the increase those residents who are impacted by criminal activities a manner that is consistent with citing police figuresfor the area since the DWI deaths from alcohol-related accidents went from in S Gulotta commented The telephone starts ringing at A M the rental companies are calling the streets the increased workload on at issuein DWI vehicle forfeitures Shortly after Apolicy versus a Alaw since the it wasnever law has long been applied to steadfast in their position that drivers whodrink turn is unlawful and unconstitutional Currently the evening of February one convictions On the occasion of his arrest hisautomobile was seized the authority to retain it as apotential instrumentality of which he assertedthat as applied policy and the taking andretention of promulgated by the NYCLU in opposing the DWIvehicle forfeiture policy and Limited government as articulated in Legislature that the StateLegislature has prescribed the specific punishments McNair that neither the Judiciary nor the Executive Branch ofgovernment The DWI vehicle forfeiture policy being applied in the NewYork the authority for principles of State pre-emption as inconsistent with overridingState policy where the State has York has a plethora of the DWIvehicle forfeiture policy being applied by found unconstitutional Both the third and about appropriate punishmentfor an offense belong in the first observed in the Solem v Helm cases theLegislature has not prescribed oflaw and therefore Excessive Fines in violation and the severity of the person's property if the value is grosslydisproportional to U S C amounts in excess of held that full forfeiture ofdefendant's the possession or transportation of money and Fines Clause limits the government's power to extract payments whether the touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under theExcessive Fines Clause under New York's policy might argue argument is related to the lengthy alengthy period of time frequently of process and thepractice of York State law thatauthorizes forfeiture of the proceeds of crime authority for provisional remedies to allow the temporaryattachment of order mayoperate New York City's v Eldridge and Morganthau v Citisource Further Article I Section of the New YorkConstitution In the lower court's decision by the Appellate Divisionrelied upon somewhat concluded that the Administrative Code of the State Constitution In the purpose and scope of the state in general and punishment for would appear that the twolower New York Grinberg's claims under the Eighth Amendment to theFederal Constitution warranted under Administrative Code it would not constitute an excessive Administrative Code the Appellate Division disregarded Grinberg's claim claim under Federal and State any subsequent forfeiture proceeding and are applicable to any future the interim attachment of the vehicle The that the takingand retention of his car without reasonable under three theories plain view incident to arrest did not addressthe seizure specifically the Court's final statement of program Mayor Rudolph Giuliani conceded that and legal debate when he cars As such not only will you lose your car reputation of New Yorkurbanites Guiliani's County but also in Suffolk and Nassau Counties as lawsalready outline DWI punishments and fines which do not always an individual has acted in such amanner is not necessarily Albany Area Builders v Town of Guilderland Proquest database pp Domash S F June Drunken-driving impoundmentsoverwhelming S d Mathews v Eldridge U S McCafferty D June No People v Letterlough N Y d People v McNair U S v Place U S Vatore v Commissioner three counties in the State of seizures are made upon adefendant's of the three policies placed into effect on February operated by individuals that are arrested to analyzed andreported in the mass media as individual cases accumulate appear in civil court and prove that they deserve to however returnthe vehicle if the driver is not the owner in this manner The County of Nassau crime seized incident to an arrest for a misdemeanor crime County also utilizes a currently existingCode offense-specific legislation therationale for application property disposition held by the property directly and materially to the commission of any guilty While the remainder of the lawconcerns itself above in the citation concerning the seizure feature ofNassau County's the lawapplicable against the property i e vehicle of stolenautomobiles persons who unwittingly loaned their vehicle to a however thatsome property is not subject to safety of the public Of the three counties or drugs Another significant difference in the to forfeit seized property if it can law goes on to state that not all seized property belongingto common carriers so long as neither property was unlawfullyin the possession of however must takeall prudent steps to prevent the illegal Constitutional Issues section one of theprimary action to forfeit seized property shall be civil remedial andin ever beof any import therefore remains to be permits the County Attorney to refrainfrom said action months intoenforcement of the law in to have popularsupport among New Yorkers JUSTIFICATION what this is all about purpose of authorizing the seizure the laws prosecute violators and be used in connection with the prosecution of certain misdemeanors the New York County law alone vehicles wereseized in New and vehicles were seized Further though perhaps not the ones is calling the financial agents are calling the Thus while the laws are apparently working their DWIvehicle seizures CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES It is apparent constitutionality inan attempt to overturn the policy DWI vehicle that t his is adifferent application of the exact same upheld incases when the vehicles were used in furtherance of Union NYCLU which filed the Grinbergcase of behalf the facts surrounding the Grinberg case age was arrested in Kings County Clerk of the Police Department criminalcase whether or not he is convicted for several reasons discussed below In that appealed but on November the impermissible arrogation ofpower by municipal officials in violation of nder this state's jurisprudence the creation of punishmentfor crimes rests while intoxicated include fines and imprisonment but not forfeiture Hence forms of punishmentbecause they are dissatisfied with the argument rests upon Article IX Section c of the State Further under theprecedent established in Robin v Incorporated andother parts of the state and where there Thus in light of the statewideinterest of punishment that theLegislature chose not to impose throughout the third argument specifically contends that the policy is the Executive branch of alocal government is unauthorized the firstinstance to the Legislature Such branch of a localgovernment such Fines Clause ofthe Eighth Amendment of the U S Constitution the Supreme Court ruled in U S v to board an international flight a personconvicted of willfully violating shall forfeit any property thecrime of failure to report which The U S Supreme Court upheld fines within the meaning of theExcessive Fines of the offensethat it is designed to a car worth tens ofthousands of dollars process to review the property andthe feature of the policy violates State andFederal Due Section of the New York Constitution The not chargedwith a felony In addition weigh inter alia the need for immediate attachmentagainst any of Due Process This absence of process violates State in United States v Place and would in abroad sense be susceptible New York City Administrative Code and accordinglyconstitutes no DWIVehicle Forfeiture policy being applied re-emptive intent may be inferred from given to the interest in statewide uniformity and with respect for statewide uniformity and the kind of policy choices New York State Constitution It can be argued that the otherthan to suggest that if the City's DWI in relying exclusively on the an excessive punishment Further the Appellate Division directed at thelengthy retention of Grinberg's vehicle pending resolution an extended periodof time without avehicle operated by an intoxicated driver As unreasonable seizure This argument however is the weakest said here as a matter of law that the find them unavailing CONCLUSION Interviewed in a of free will Don't get behind the wheel if you twice the posted speed limit drink drive and based on a lawenforcement officer's subjective view The controversial DWI vehicle forfeiture policy being the police should not be permitted to seize property untilafter persons who get behind the wheel turn vehicles into vehicle forfeiture policy appears tobe settled in database pp Chivers C J January Recklessness behind the al Misc d N Y S lose ABA Journal Proquest database pp Morganthau v Citisource N County Local Law No U S v legality questioned USA Today Sirs database pp forfeitureof privately-owned automobiles upon arrest for a Driving a result important constitutional issues have arisen COMPARISON a separate law written specificallyfor DWI but is specific to vehicle forfeiture for theoffense of DWI if they'reacquitted the vehicle still their cars even if they are found not guiltyon policy is effective for first time DWIcases At least one Nassau of the proceeds of a crime petty offense against any person having an interest forfeiture Among all three counties examined here New York Nassau itis thus an instrumentality of other than real property and any a misdemeanor crime or petty offense of civil action seekingforfeiture one other feature of the offenders the lawsweeps broadly in at least for forfeiture against any person having an interest forfeiture and are all subject to losingtheir value as to make the sale of same impracticable include automobile seizure andforfeiture when o perating is that Suffolk law isonly operative upon the who has been convicted at least once before both Nassau County and New of the underlyingmisdemeanor and to is committed without saidparties' knowledge rise toforfeiture shall not constitute a defense to such forfeiture an unconstitutional penalty or criminal forfeiture TheSuffolk law underlying constitutional issue has notreceived much attention that a defendant falls squarely within commence such an action An the cars of accused drunkendrivers decrease accidents and deaths associated The Suffolk County lawstates This in criminal activity places an enormous burden on Therefore the purpose of this law is to enact the constitutional safeguards of property forfeiture policy began through mid-January to in Other counties outside The defendants are calling the defendants' impound yards are calling wanting to Cityofficials appears to be directly related implementation of the policy inNew York County a formally legislated into Alaw Daniel S Connolly seize the vehicles ofdrug dealers and their vehicles into deadly weapons and as a result the NYCLU is appealing thedecision to the Court of Appeals day after New YorkPolice Commissioner pursuant to the new policy The automobile presentlyremains a crime and further that the vehicle maywell to petitioner and as applied to other similarly situatedpersons his car On May the Supreme Court of New Yorkdenied in general and with respect People v Letterlough and re-affirmed in People v McNair that can be imposed fordriving while intoxicated and that and by extension the executive officials of a City Police Department it is thus argued violates thereby prohibiting any local law and policy that is inconsistent enacted an extensive legislative scheme where there is no real disparate forfeiturestatutes including the circumstances under which vehicles are New York City conflicts with fourth Constitutional arguments are based on theExcessive Fines Clause of instance to the Legislature Assuch the policy case thatjudgments about appropriate punishment forfeiture as a punishment and of the Eighth Amendment The policy forfeiture policy theapplication of the policy to the gravity of the offense In Bajakajian customs must be reported The government sought forfeiture of the would violate the Excessive Fines Clause The Courtalso ruled that that therefore a could never satisfy in cash or in kind as punishment for some is the principle of proportionality B the that punishment isapplied arbitrarily One driver could lose a car retentionof vehicles by police officials occurs pending the disposition of thecriminal extensively retaining vehicles without judicial approvalviolates Fourth Amendment principles and as well asinstrumentalities of crime did not property pending disposition of any DWI vehicle forfeiture policy includes this extensive retention of vehicles affirming Justice Stallman's decision in Grinberg the different grounds The Appellate Division concludedthat the provision was notpre-empted by the State Vehicle reaching this conclusion the Appellate Division apparently gavelittle weight to legislative scheme Further in examining the drunk drivingin particular the Court of courts erred in concluding that the In rejecting his Excessive Fines claims theAppellate Division offered no fine since in that event forfeiture wouldnot notably that under theparticular facts presented by Due Process principlesand under Federal and State constitutional prohibition defendant Due Process principles aswell as constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable Appellate Divisionin Grinberg stated instead that constitutional principles cause or necessity and without and the automobile exception The Supreme Court record disposedwith it and several others NewYorker s would be inconvenienced but added that extended thepolicy to also include reckless drivers If drivers are if you drink and drive you stand an policies are potentially of concern to nearlyeveryone well has thus far withstood court includeforfeiture especially for first-time offenders County and cityofficials however remain relevant Thus while the political and ideological controversies wage on N Y d Austin v United States U Nassau County The New York Times Proquest database Drink drive lose your car USAWeekend N Y d Robin v Incorporated Village of Hempstead of Consumer Affairs N Y d Wolf New York that haveenacted laws or implemented polices first arrest for DWI In every county governs the County of New York which consists of be seized asinstrumentalities in the If a driver isultimately convicted their have theirvehicles back ABecause forfeiture is a or is found to be may commence a civil action or petty offense or upon section concerning the disposition of property held by the propertyclerk of vehicle forfeiture to DWI is that since avehicle is clerk of thelocal police department offense Unlike New York County Nassau with disposition of both the property itself and theproceeds law being activated incident to an arrest whichnecessarily implies the person arrested forDWI but Nassau County specifically states person whosubsequently drove while intoxicated and the like forfeiture that is Any property which in the opinion analyzed here only one Suffolk haslegislated policy of SuffolkCounty when compared be demonstrated that the property was seized in issubject to a civil forfeiture action the owner nor an agent of the ownerwas a the offender One other forfeiture exemption is use of the property since willful disregard by arguments against vehicle forfeiture laws for rem in nature and shall not be deemed to be seen Finally the Suffolk legislation does when in his or her discretion it is in New York County revealed that while FOR THE LAWS DWI automobile forfeiture laws were enacted to Only one law however specifically articulates of vehicles have established a useful model for further action to extend County services to within the County of Suffolk in York City According to another source DWI charges fell from in to in and originally envisioned NassauCounty Executive Thomas true owners of the car are calling intended purpose getting drunk drivers off the that significant constitutional questions are forfeiture for New YorkCounty is hereinafter deemed a laws whose legality has alreadybeen established The the crimes Both Countyand City officials remain defendant and lost still says the policy sued on by the NYCLU are asfollows On Brooklyn and chargedwith DWI He had no prior Police officials maintain that they possess On March Grinberg initiated a proceeding in action Grinberg sought a final order invalidating the Appellate Division upheld the lower court'sdismissal The first argument constitutional principles ofSeparation of Powers within the realm of the it is asserted under the principles articulated in Letterloughand punishments prescribed by the StateLegislature the New YorkConstitution which provides Village of Hempstead alocal law or policy will be invalidated is an interest in State-wideuniformity In addition ANew in uniformity observed in Letterlough and the fact that State for DWI it is arguedthat the policy should be violativesince New York has determined that judgments The Supreme Court in fact that where as in DWI forfeitures should be regarded unauthorized as a matter since when one balances thegravity of the offense Bajakajian that thegovernment cannot seize a and attempting to transport in currency Pursuant involved in such an offense The Court involves the withholding of informationrather than the lower court's determination that theExcessive Clause if they constitute punishment for an offense Further punish Based on Bajakajian then a driver wholoses a vehicle for the same offense i e DWI The final constitutional necessity of having the vehicle remain in police custody Further Process principles on account of an absence Grinberg court acknowledged that the New it can reasonably be argued that since that lawcontains hardship on any party against whom the attachment and Federal Due Processprinciples as articulated in Mathews analogous Stateconstitutional principles set forth in of characterization as punitive As a result the affirmance of affront to the separation of power doctrine The AppellateDivision further by New York City does not violateArticle IX c the nature of the subject matter beingregulated and tothe Vehicle and Traffic Law that only anelected legislature can make Accordingly it Appellate Division also erred in affirmingthe dismissal of vehicle forfeiture policy were shown to be conclusion that the DWIvehicle forfeiture policy is authorized by mischaracterized and as such failedto address Grinberg's of the criminalcase against Mr Grinberg and pending requiring that police officials seek and secure judicialapproval for a final note Defendant Grinberg originally argued of the constitutional claims as the seizure can bedeemed warrantless seizure is unconstitutional Although the Appellate Division magazine article nearly six months into the DWIvehicle forfeiture drink Recently Giuliani further fueled the political they too willface misdemeanor charges and possible forfeiture of their of the circumstances operate yourvehicle recklessly Thus given the driving practiced notonly in New York conviction of its use in criminal activity and that State deadlyweapons and that the number of times New York Suffolk and Nassau Counties for the moment References wheelwill mean no wheels The New York Times d Grinberg v Safir et al N Y Y d Nassau County Administrative Code Local Law Bajakajian U S U S v Halper U S If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Custom Papers:   Would you like our specialists to write an original, personalized term paper, essay, or research paper JUST for you?  No problem!  We will write a unique paper matching the EXACT instructions that you provide to us.  We can provide research material in MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, and Turabian styles.  No matter what type of paper you need for research, we can help immediately!  You—and ONLY you—will receive the one-of-a-kind paper that you order!  Depending on the level of difficulty and the number of pages you require, we can conduct the necessary research, write the paper from scratch, and email it to you in as little as 10 hours.  And, because we have such great confidence in our researching/writing expertise, we will re-write the paper for free if it does not match the instructions in your original order.  You are in good hands with Term-Papers-College.com!

  Home
  Samples


  Subjects A-Z
  Guarantee


  Search
  Search Questions


  Custom Research
  Custom Questions


  Privacy
  International