[Continued at 
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--court-preview1013oct13,0,77
93228.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
or 
http://tinyurl.com/que7  ]

Court to decide on car seizure policy

By JOEL STASHENKO
Associated Press Writer

October 13, 2003, 1:23 PM EDT

ALBANY, N.Y. -- The state's highest court will decide on the legality of a
county's policy of seizing the automobiles of drunken drivers during the
court's October session.

The Court of Appeals will be asked to rescind Nassau County's decision to
seize Michaele Canavan's 1995 Saturn because of her arrest in 2000 for
driving while intoxicated and speeding.

Her lawyers contend the seizure law, similar to those on the books in New
York City and Suffolk and Rensselaer counties, is unconstitutionally vague
and represents excessive punishment in cases like Canavan's.

Other cases to be heard by the six Court of Appeals judges in the session
beginning Wednesday concern whether the operators of the famed Rainbow Room
in Rockefeller Plaza improperly pocketed some wait staff gratuities and
whether some higher-level state technicians were forced to work unpaid
overtime.

Nassau County's seizure law, like others in the state, is designed to
penalize people who use vehicles in the commission of crimes. Groups such
as Mothers Against Drunken Drivers support the laws and say they are an
effective way to get drunken drivers off the road or to force them to stop
drinking and driving.

In Canavan's case, she pleaded guilty to speeding and a reduced charge of
driving while impaired, paid a $400 fine and had her license suspended for
90 days. Nassau County also started a forfeiture proceeding to seize her
Saturn, valued at $6,500.

A state Supreme Court justice backed the county, saying that although the
$6,500 far exceeded the maximum fine Canavan faced in the case _ $500 _ the
gravity of the driving-while-impaired offense had to be taken into
consideration. The justice also characterized the loss of Canavan's vehicle
as "an inconvenience _ a major inconvenience, to be sure, but still an
inconvenience."

A midlevel court dismissed the forfeiture action, saying Nassau County's
law failed to provide adequate warning to the public about when their
vehicles could be subject to seizure. While the law refers to the
possibility that cars could be forfeited for "petty" offenses, county
officials conceded that that penalty is only sought for drivers who are
caught driving drunk and not for other traffic infractions like reckless
driving.

"This absence of standards coupled with the conceded selectivity of
enforcement is offensive to constitutional due process and, in our view,
renders the code ... invalid," the midlevel Appellate Division of state
Supreme Court panel ruled.

Nassau County said 1,300 vehicle seizures carried out under the law and 200
pending seizures could be affected by the Court of Appeals ruling. 

. . .
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


******************************************************
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest
******************************************************