New York County Policy

" Apparently, authorities will, however, return the fomite if the driver is not the owner, or is found to be just now "impaired" versus "intoxicated."

Further, the New York County form _or_ system of government is effective for first quantify DWI cases. At least one other New York province county -- capital of the Bahamas -- also enforces the polity in this manner.

The County of Nassau whitethorn commence a civil action for forfeiture to the County of Nassau of the proceeds of a crime, substituted proceeds of a crime or instrumentality of a crime seized incident to an arrest for a misdemeanor crime or petty offense or upon a conviction for such misdemeanor crime or petty offense against any person having an interest in such property.

Like New York County, Nassau County also utilizes a currently existing Code section concerning the disposition of property held by the property clerk as authority for and enforcement of the DWI vehicle forfeiture. Among all three counties examined here -- New York, Nassau and Suffolk (Suffolk County has take separate, offense-specific legislation) -- the rationale for application of vehicle forfeiture to DWI is that since a vehicle is a necessary element of a "Driving composition Intoxicated" charge, it is thus an "instrumentality of a crime," and is therefore governed by local law dealing with property disposition held by the property clerk of the local police department.

"Instrumentality of a crime" means any property, other than real prope

Robin v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead, 30 N.Y.2d 347 (1972).

It is apparent that significant constitutional questions are at curve in DWI vehicle forfeitures. Shortly after implementation of the policy in New York County, a lawsuit was filed to challenge its constitutionality in an attempt to overturn the policy. (DWI vehicle forfeiture for New York County is hereinafter deemed a Apolicy@ versus a Alaw,@ since the it was never formally legislated into Alaw.@) Daniel S.

Connolly, Special give notice to New York City's Corporation Counsel, states, however, that "[t]his is a different application of the charter same laws," whose "legality has already been established." The law has long been utilise to seize the vehicles of drug dealers and persons who solicit prostitutes, and has been upheld in cases when the vehicles were used in furtherance of the crimes. Both County and City officials remain steadfast in their position that drivers who drink turn their vehicles into deadly weapons, and, as a result, rightly deserve to lose them.

The policy is further in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, since when one balances the temperance of the offense and the severity of the forfeiture policy, the application of the policy is " undue" and "grossly disproportionate." Two years ago, the Supreme Court rule in U.S. v. Bajakajian that the government cannot seize a person's property if the set is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense."

Thus, while the political and ideological controversies wage on, the constitutional issues relative to DWI vehicle forfeiture policy appears to be settled in New York, Suffolk and Nassau Counties -- for the moment.

capital of Texas v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993).

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.