Bill To Impound Cars In Duis Loses

Members of the Idaho House found themselves in a quandary Monday.

They wanted to vote for a bill that punished drunken drivers by impounding or forfeiting their vehicles, but many felt it was unconstitutional or the wrong approach.

Those with doubts won out. The House voted 53-16 against legislation sponsored by Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Nampa, despite what some members saw as attractive features.

Taylor urged support for his proposal to allow impoundment for 30 days of a person’s vehicle if the driver is convicted of drunken driving. If the owner did not pick the vehicle up within 60 days after the impoundment, it would be sold to pay handling fees.

Any driver convicted of felony drunken driving, three convictions within five years, could have his or her vehicle forfeited.

“I’m not sure anything we do to these people will necessarily keep them from drinking and driving,” Taylor said.

“If you take a car away from a person for 30 days, it might be a deterrent.”

Rep. John Tippets, R-Bennington, objected to the legislation, because even motorists found innocent or whose charges were dismissed would have to pay fees and costs to redeem their vehicles.

The legislation also allowed no legal action or lawsuit against an officer who ordered a motorist’s vehicle impounded, even if the officer acted maliciously.

“I wonder if that is really what we want to do,” Tippets said.

Rep. Bruce Newcomb, R-Burley, asked what would happen if a motorist was convicted of aggravated drunken driving and stood to lose a very expensive vehicle, such as a Mercedez-Benz.

“It would be bye-bye $70,000,” Taylor said.

Newcomb noted wryly that prisons are already crowded with people convicted of drunken driving.

“Maybe when we arrest these people we should just weld the doors shut and leave them in the car. And get the state out of the business of selling liquor,” he said.

Other lawmakers said people suffer enough when a member of the family has a drinking problem and loss of the family car could bring serious problems to an innocent spouse.

Taylor said his proposal contained a provision that a spouse or other owner of the vehicle could ask the judge for a hardship exemption.

“Families are having enough of a struggle already, having to put up with a person who is continually convicted of DUI,” said Rep. June Judd, D-St. Maries.

Rep. Frank Bruneel, R-Lewiston, said sending drunken drivers to prison doesn’t seem to help.

“Sometimes, the things that are the most important to those people are the cars or vehicles they are driving,” he said.

A Twin Falls lawyer, Rep. Mark Stubbs, said the measure probably was unconstitutional because it provided no hearing before a person could lose a vehicle to forfeiture.

He also objected to the fact an officer couldn’t be sued for maliciously abusing the law.