Our
View: L.A. City Council goes too far
In
a misguided attempt to revive an issue that
has diminished in urgency after years in
the spotlight, members of the Los Angeles
City Council are drafting an ordinance that
would allow the city to confiscate the vehicles
of motorists arrested on suspicion of drunken
driving. In addition to its purported goal
of sending a message to drunken drivers,
the measure brings with it the convenient
bonus of added revenue in a time of budget
hardship. This proposed legislation is unfair
and is probably unconstitutional.
It
seems unconstitutional on several grounds.
For one, the 14th Amendment says that no
state shall deprive any person of property
without due process of law. The immediate
confiscation blatantly violates this clause
because it presumes guilt and amounts to
a summary conviction.
A
virtually identical New York law was struck
down in part last month because citizens
had to wait amid a yearlong backlog of civil
cases in order to gain a hearing at which
they could gain release of their vehicle.
All
the time during this wait the person had
to continue making monthly payments if money
was owed on the car. Which leads to another
constitutional conflict. Even if the person
is guilty, such fines, when compounded with
already stiff penalties for drunken driving,
may amount to the "excessive fines"
expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Now,
of course we are not referring to drunken
driving cases where injuries, property damage
or extremely reckless driving are involved.
In such cases the punishment can be deservedly
strict. But imagine someone who tests just
above the legal blood alcohol level limit.
This person already faces severe fines;
seizure of his or her vehicle means the
punishment is no longer an eye for an eye,
but a head for an eye.
As
noted, the putative goal of the ordinance
is to discourage drunken driving. But strong
punishment can only do so much. People do
not drive drunk because they view the punishment
- $1,300 fine, suspension of license, a
12-step program and hugely increased insurance
premiums - as a mere slap on the wrist.
They drive drunk because they are drunk
and are therefore temporarily ignorant of
the consequences.
Moreover,
the whole anti-drunken driving public service
campaign falls short of its potential effectiveness
because it focuses too much on the effects
upon strangers. People don't really entertain
the idea that they are going to plow into
another car and kill someone while driving
drunk. A more resonant message would be
one that emphasized the aforementioned pecuniary
costs to the drunken driver.
Finally,
financial gain is certainly a motive. Last
year Los Angeles confiscated and sold 102
automobiles, generating $66,000 in revenue.
These vehicles were involved in such crimes
as street racing, prostitution and illegal
dumping, crimes for which the city already
assesses vehicle confiscation as a penalty.
Were the city to confiscate the cars of
the 2,500 people that were on average arrested
for DUI during each of the past three years,
it would reap more than $1.6 million in
revenue.
This
is an attractive incentive for implementing
the new law, but no amount of financial
gain should allow the council to skirt constitutional
rights and general fairness.
|
