Seize of Vehicles and DUI

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 application of the Property Clerk Forfeiture Law that permits vehicles operated by individuals that are arrested to be seized as instrumentalities in the commission of a crime.

Since no legislation exists specific to vehicle forfeiture for the offense of DWI, the policy's application and effect is being analyzed and reported in the mass media as individual cases accumulate. If a driver is ultimately convicted, their car is auctioned; but even if they're acquitted, the vehicle still may not be returned, since defendants are required to appear in civil court and prove that they deserve to have their vehicles back.

ABecause forfeiture is a civil proceeding with a lesser burden of proof, defendants could lose their cars even if

. . .
ion (NYCLU), which filed the Grinberg case of behalf the defendant -- and lost -- still says the policy is "unlawful" and "unconstitutional," Currently, the NYCLU is appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State of New York. The facts surrounding the Grinberg case sued on by the NYCLU are as follows: On the evening of February 21, 1999, one day after New York Police Commissioner Safir announced the DWI vehicle forfeiture policy, Pavel Grinberg, age 28, was arrested in Kings County (Brooklyn) and charged with DWI. He had no prior convictions. On the occasion of his arrest, his automobile was seized pursuant to the new policy. The automobile presently remains in the custody of the Property Clerk of the Police Department. Police officials maintain that they possess the authority to retain it as a potential "instrumentality of a crime," and further, that the vehicle may well be subject to forfeiture at the conclusion of Grinberg's criminal case, whether or not he is convicted. On March 9, 1999, Grinberg initiated a proceeding in which he asserted that, as applied to petitioner and as applied to other similarly situated persons, the Police Department's new DWI vehicle forfeiture policy
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Nassau County, Appellate Division, York County, Supreme Court, Due Process, Suffolk County, Forfeiture Law, Recently Giuliani, Based Bajakajian, Nassau Counties, dwi vehicle, vehicle forfeiture, forfeiture policy, dwi vehicle forfeiture, vehicle forfeiture policy, appellate division, york county, excessive fines, nassau county, fines clause, excessive fines clause, york city, due process, administrative code ', due process principles,
Approximate Word count = 4376
Approximate Pages = 18 (250 words per page)