Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 12, 1993 TAG: 9312120058
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Police could immediately impound the cars of dangerous drivers caught on the road with suspended operators' licenses, if a proposed bill becomes law next year.
Del. Richard Cranwell, D-Roanoke County, said the measure was recently drafted by a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee, which was formed in July after a public hearing in Roanoke.
The hearing focused mostly on high-profile cases in which three suspended drivers caused fatal accidents in the Roanoke Valley. But with an estimated 665,000 suspended drivers statewide, legislators hope to narrow the law's target to hit the most dangerous of them.
Cranwell says the impoundment bill would do just that.
The law would apply to people who drive after their operators' licenses are suspended for offenses related to driving under the influence. Police would be empowered to seize a driver's car on the spot and impound it for 30 days - without a court hearing.
"There would be no ifs, ands or buts about it," Cranwell said. If a driver suspended on a DUI-related offense ventured on the road, "that's it," Cranwell said. "The car is gone."
If the car belonged to someone other than the driver, the law would allow the owner to petition a court to have it returned.
After arresting suspended drivers, police could have their cars towed to an impoundment lot. But the law also may allow localities to immobilize a car at the driver's home with a locking device on the steering wheel or tires, Cranwell said.
The measure is an attempt to improve an earlier confiscation law, which was repealed in 1989 because it was considered too costly and time-consuming.
Under the old law, seized automobiles were sold after a lengthy court process. The new law aims to create a more streamlined process that will have the same effect: taking the cars away from dangerous drivers, at least in the short run.
Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell said he supports the idea of taking cars away from scofflaws who are unfazed by suspended licenses.
"We talk a lot about responsible gun ownership. What we also need to talk about is responsible car ownership," Caldwell said.
Caldwell said he would like to see lawmakers go one step further and allow for the forfeiture of cars driven by people who have had their licenses suspended three times or more and those with repeat DUI offenses.
The impoundment bill is just one proposal to emerge from the subcommittee, which met last week in Richmond. Other proposed measures are:
Administrative revocation, a measure that would allow police to take the license of suspected drunken drivers at the time of their arrest, with no hearing. The bill passed in last year's session, but was later killed on a technicality.
Lowering the blood-alcohol content necessary for a conviction of drunken driving from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent, a bill that also failed last year. For drivers under the legal drinking age of 21, the threshold for a drunken-driving conviction would be lowered to 0.02 percent.
Increasing the punishment to a 12-month maximum jail sentence for people who knowingly allow suspended or revoked drivers to get behind the wheel of their cars. The current penalty is six months.
Given the history of some of the bills - combined with Gov.-elect George Allen's opposition to administrative revocation - passage at the 1994 session is by no means assured.
But this time the proposed legislation, most likely to be sponsored by Cranwell, will be packaged in a single bill.
"We're going to roll it all into one bill, and I very seriously doubt the governor would veto a fine piece of legislation like that," Cranwell said.
Some observers give the legislation a better chance in 1994 than it had in previous years, especially in the wake of a recent campaign that attempted to portray Cranwell as lenient on drunken drivers.
"I would think that it will probably go pretty strong, when you look at the personalities involved," said Del. Steve Agee, R-Salem, who served on the subcommittee but will not be returning to Richmond next year.
Cranwell's unsuccessful opponent, Republican Bud Brumitt, also took a stab at the House Courts of Justice Committee. Brumitt called the committee "the place where strong anti-crime bills have gone to die - including reforms of the drunken-driving laws."
And when the committee took the unusual step of traveling to Roanoke for a public hearing in July, members found themselves the target of some stinging public criticism.
All that may combine to make 1994 the year tough drunken-driving laws finally get passed.
"I think once it clears the House Courts of Justice Committee, and I suspect it will, that would be the only big hurdle," Agee said.
When the committee held its public hearing in July, seizing the cars of illegal drivers was one of the most frequently mentioned ideas.
Roanoke Police Chief David Hooper supports the concept of impoundment. The process might create more work for the officers who impound cars, but Hooper reserved judgement on that until he could learn more details.
"If they attach a lot of administrative responsibilities to it, it could be more cumbersome than it's worth," he said.
Caldwell said there still are details - making offenders pay the cost of impoundment, for example - that need to be worked out.
"Hopefully [Cranwell] is going to not only introduce the legislation, but he's going to champion it," Caldwell said. "It's not as easily done as it is said."
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB