The Billings Gazette said that the Yellowstone County Attorney hasn’t been taking advantage of the statute and said “as many as five or six vehicles a week could be seized and there just isn’t space to store them.”
So if it takes some effort some counties like Yellowstone may not take advantage of the statute but for now if you plan on being a habitual driving under the influence offender you best avoid Musselshell County.
What do you think? Should all counties take a look at this to slow down the number of DUI’s or is the Yellowstone County Attorney right that it is just too much effort? Read the whole story at the Billings Gazette
Everybody makes mistakes but if you didn’t learn that you need a ride home after your first DUI I am ok with taking their vehicle away for the next one.
ReplyDeleteThe question that came to mind as I read the Billing story was why aren’t other counties taking advantage of this law?
It is nice to see that other options are being discussed rather than the really bad idea of blaming the concocted 'disease' of alcoholism, and forcing people to particpate in the AA faith, or their profitable business arm the recovery industry cartel. In the US, rehabs uses 12 step theology over 90% of the time. This is done in a coercive manner, feeding the $20 billion dollar a year industry, with not only NO credible studies showing efficacy, but also real dangers such as the number of people they kill.
ReplyDeleteThis is also unconstitutional, and anyone forced to these actions can sue the sentencing agency, employer, social services determining child custody, and we also have credible reports coming in of organ transplant teams withholding organs for failing to convert to the Alcoholics Anonymous faith. It is a direct infringement of a persons First Amendments Rights. People may sue, citing the Inouye v Kenma decision from the 9th Circuit Court.
Additionally, there is a push to hold sentencing agencies, and landlords of properties in use, to be financially accountable for the sexual and financial predation that occurs and are many times covered up in the AA faith- such as the Midtown Q Group.
One should also think about that before too much money is 'invested' in the Havre Drug and Alcohol Court.
One would have thought Drew 'Dr Death' Pinsky killing two of his celebrity patients, Jeff Conaway and Mike Starr on national television might have changed some opinions. Perhaps the fact that late night comedians often use the word 'rehab' as a punchline might get the message across that this is the worst failure in modern medical history.
Giving the steptards (especially the professional drug and alcohol 'counselors') credibility is actually letting the inmates run the asylum, and allows sexual and violent predators to network under the cloak of anonymity. It is just a really bad idea.
It is also obsolete, since the Sinclair Method in conjunction with Naltrexone is by far the most effective method for people who abuse alcohol, yet is consistently downplayed in efficacy because widespead use would kill the recovery industry.
There are some questions that should be asked about this vehicle seizing idea before everyone jumps on the bandwagon.
It seems from the idea that the people whose vehicles will be seized are the ones that have them paid off. If a bank holds a lien on a vehicle, is the bank stiffed until the auction? If the vehicle is worth less than the lien, is the bank stiffed for the remainder? Since the bank is listed on the title, if the loan is more than the value of the vehicle, will the bank sue the seizing agency?
I suggest this, because I am guessing that the borrowers will stop making payments after their vehicle is seized. Perhaps I am wrong there, but it seems like a good bet.
Are all these vehicles going to be parked at the Havre City Police Station on 5th Avenue while this is determined?
It said in the article the lien holders get paid first. It would seem a little unfair given that a guy with a newer car would be forfeiting a larger amount of equity than a guy driving a 500 dollar car with no insurance but if they already had one DUI I think they have it coming. A person also should have their car impounded on the spot when they are caught driving with no insurance
ReplyDeleteProbably don’t have to worry about this in Havre as they won’t put forth the effort to make it happen
Making a statement that the lienholders get paid first does not answer the question.
ReplyDeleteHaving the vehicle seized does not remove the lien from the title, and since many DUIs are issued post accident, there is a real possibility that many vehicles would be worth less than the liens.
The agency auctioning the vehicle would have to disclose that there is a lien on the title. The bank would be unable to repo their collateral while it is in impound, which could be possibly forever, particularly when there is an outstanding lien on the title.
If there is not a full parking lot of vehicles awaiting auction, one would assume that that due process is not being used and some peoples vehicles (the ones that owe a lot of money on them) are not being impounded.
Might even be hard to find a parking spot in the swimming pool or St Judes if they decide to push this bright idea.
It sounds like the state is attempting to change a secured loan into an unsecured loan. Banks do not abide by rules like this, rather banks have the rules changed to suit their needs.
The problem has always been that repeat DUI offenders are not driving Escalades. They are driving $800 cars with $900 loans. that is why the counties are not snatching them up.
ReplyDelete