At least, that’s what A DuPage County judge out of Illinois ruled last month. According to an piece of writing published by the Chicago Sun-Times,
A DuPage County judge ruled that Illinois’ vehicle forfeiture statute gives the state too broad of influence to impound vehicles, mainly in cases where a vehicle’s co-owner loses a car despite not being charged or where an accused crook faces only misdemeanor charges.
The case stems from claims by three men charged with multiple counts of intoxicated driving. They alleged a nearly decade-old state law did not give them the ability to make a case with judges for getting back their seized vehicles until their cases went to trial years afterward.
I’m not sure I’m understanding this properly- I mean, I can see the point of the quarrel being made, but the last time I checked, people with a drunk driving record of any sort almost certainly don’t need to be driving.
No doubt, the ruling in this particular case almost certainly did a small more than surprise anti-drunk driving advocates and onlookers. If someone is having their vehicle seized, it’s not because the police officer has anything beside them; it’s because they are a REPEAT criminal. How many more people have to endure at the hands of drunk drivers before the point is made?
for more details about Auto Transport please visit www.transportrankings.com
A DuPage County judge ruled that Illinois’ vehicle forfeiture statute gives the state too broad of influence to impound vehicles, mainly in cases where a vehicle’s co-owner loses a car despite not being charged or where an accused crook faces only misdemeanor charges.
The case stems from claims by three men charged with multiple counts of intoxicated driving. They alleged a nearly decade-old state law did not give them the ability to make a case with judges for getting back their seized vehicles until their cases went to trial years afterward.
I’m not sure I’m understanding this properly- I mean, I can see the point of the quarrel being made, but the last time I checked, people with a drunk driving record of any sort almost certainly don’t need to be driving.
No doubt, the ruling in this particular case almost certainly did a small more than surprise anti-drunk driving advocates and onlookers. If someone is having their vehicle seized, it’s not because the police officer has anything beside them; it’s because they are a REPEAT criminal. How many more people have to endure at the hands of drunk drivers before the point is made?
for more details about Auto Transport please visit www.transportrankings.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment