Find Reviews by Make:
Speaking of Paris Hilton, Chicago is cracking down on the 25k drivers motoring around the windy city on a revoked or suspended license. The Chicago Sun Times reports that the police will now impound the miscreants’ cars. While the Times points out that Chicago probably doesn’t have the storage capacity for the expected influx, we’re more interested in the fact that “Vehicle impoundment has become the city's catch-all penalty for 13 offenses ranging from drunken driving, fly-dumping and prostitution to loud radio playing, drag racing, and drug and curfew violations.” Not to mention the new $1000 “administrative fee” needed to reclaim an impounded automobile. Hey, I thought judges set criminal penalties…
12 Comments on “Chicago Swipes Criminals’ Cars...”
Read all comments
I wonder exactly how loud your radio must be playing before you get impounded?
Anything that reduces the huge number of falling-apart rust-eaten heaps driving around Chicago is fine by me.
Driving is a privilege not a right, so yeah anyone who abuses that or uses their car to commit a crime deserves to lose it. That Includes driving around at 2am with the bass thumping.
If you’re concerned about the rust heaps, they will leave them and get another rust heap that costs less than $1,000 to buy which isn’t going to help matters any for the city.
I really need to get used to the editing…
What else do you do if they round up 50 cars a night for a week? Where are all those rust heaps and decent cars going to be stored? Who is going to pay for that?
This is a really bad idea, and hopefully the impounding for various silly reasons (yes, loud stereos is a ludicrous reason for impounding a vehicle when a real violation or crime could have been handled) will be put to a swift end.
After reading the headline, but before reading the content, all I could think was “Those poor Aldermen….”
Revoked or suspended license? No insurance? Illegal alien?
Impound them and crush them. Sell the scrap to cover expenses.
This creates a legal quandary that was recently demonstrated in the Paris Hilton case: The administrative power of the executive branch of government versus the constitutional protection of the judicial branch. While hal correctly states that driving is a privilege and not a right, we do have a constitutional right to due process which it would seem the Chicago police dept. may be darting around… In reality I can’t see any judge ruling against the Chicago police dept in a case that might come before it. It is just easier to allow the administrative function some leeway here in order to enforce the laws. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting test case.
On another note: I live in Chicago and these laws are no joke… I have a friend who had his car impounded for 6 outstanding parking tickets. Parking tickets!!! An outstanding parking ticket used to be something everyone just had and no one paid… they were almost like resident ID cards – you couldn’t really claim you were from Chicago unless you had one. Not the case anymore…
Re: Driving is a privilege not a right.
No matter how many times one’s driver education teacher (and one’s parents) repeat this mantra, it just isn’t so. Granted, it’s not listed in the bill of rights, but still there exist only a few reasons why the “right” could be denied.
When initially getting a license to drive a motor vehicle (does one need a license to drive a horse and buggy? I wonder) one can only be denied for safety reasons – e.g. one can’t pass the eye test, one can’t pass a test on traffic signs and rules of the road, or one can’t demonstrate an ability to guide a car safely around a circuit of about a mile and a half.
The eye test is about as rigorous as it gets, but still these are the standards and if one meets them, there is simply no justification for the denial of a license. That makes it quite distinct from a privilege, which could be denied on a whim, with any justification, or no justification at all.
After obtaining a license it may be revoked for various offenses, mostly having to do -again- with safety. If one has too many speeding tickets, to many tickets for reckless drivng, too many times (once is enough) caught drving while under the influence, then one isn’t being safe, thereby justifying revocation of one’s license. Again, this is very different than revoking a license because the authorities don’t like the cut of your jib.
Driving is a right, but like any other right, there are limitations.
I can see impounding a car when someone is driving without a current valid icense. For one thing, suspended license means one is not competent to drive home. Impounding for having a loud radio seems ridiculous. This is disturbing the peace. I don’t see why one automatically forfiets an expensive piece of property (even a $1,000 car is a valuable property) for a minor civil infraction.
Orian
I think zero tolerance policing works and I pay my parking tickets. Cracking down on antisocial things like loud car stereos or parking tickets might seem draconian but it’s small things that make the difference between having a livable city or having to move out of the city and it’s been proven to reduce overall crime rates.
If you or your kids are woken repeatedly by car stereos or alarms it’s not a minor problem.
Dynamic
You don’t need a licence to drive a horse and buggy on the road but you do need buggy plates – at least in Indiana.
This sounds like just a another scheme to get revenue. Do they impose that fee on any car that has been impounded?
If your car is stolen and the police recover it and put it in the impound lot do you still have to pay fee?
Can you get your car out without paying the fee while you are contesting the charge?
Sounds kind of Fishy but it is Chicago…
Chicago “authorities” have always has had difficulties in perceiving the difference between law enforcement and extortion with menaces.
I’m all for crushing the cars of law breakers. HOWEVER the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights (supposedly) gives us the right to a) being regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a court b) rights to our property and c) due process.
This Chicago “law enforcement tactic” (which is really extortion with menaces) fails on all 3 counts, from what I can see.
This is not unique to Chicago. In Los Angeles, you have to pay your traffic fine even if you want to plead not-guilty and demand a trial. Only if you are acquitted are you able to apply for a refund.
To add insult to injury, there are court fees imposed, even if you are acquitted. So you are still out-of-pocket.
And to make matters worse, a private corporation is in charge of collecting fines and issuing reimbursements for acquittals. Of course the company has a terrible track record of getting refunds issued. They really go out of their way to get your money back to you…. NOT.
The higher courts so far have allowed the lower courts and police to confiscate private property/money prior to conviction.