School Law Bulletin #1999/02
Public Schools and Vehicles Forfeited for Drunk Driving
THE BASIC OPERATION of the 1997 driving while im- paired (DWI) amendments on forfeiture of motor ve- hicles in DWI cases was fairly clear.1 A vehicle was subject to forfeiture if it was driven by a person (a)␣ who was charged with a specified impaired driving offense and (b)␣ whose driver’s license was revoked, at the time of that offense, for specified conduct involving impaired driving. The law enforcement officer lodging the charge was directed to seize the vehicle, and the judicial official reviewing the charge had to determine if there was probable cause to support the charge and the seizure.
After the vehicle was seized, it was towed to a site designated by the local school board. It could be a com- mercial site owned by an entity contracting with the school board, or it could be the school board’s own site. The vehicle generally was held until the court entered a judgment regarding the impaired driving charge that supported the seizure. If the person charged was not convicted of the impaired driving offense, the vehicle was returned to its owner. If the driver was convicted, the court had to conduct a hearing to determine if the vehicle should be forfeited. If the court ordered the ve- hicle forfeited, the school board could either keep it or sell it.
The 1997 DWI amendments included provisions to enable a vehicle owner (other than the driver charged with impaired driving) and/or a lienholder to obtain pretrial release of a seized vehicle. If the vehicle owner could demonstrate to the court in a forfeiture hearing that he or she did not know that the defendant’s driver’s license had been revoked or that the vehicle was being driven without permission, the owner could recover the vehicle permanently. (This type of owner is hereinafter referred to as an “innocent owner.”)
As the 1997 law began to be administered, several things became obvious. First, the number of vehicles potentially subject to the law was larger than antici- pated. Second, vehicles seized under the new law often were not owned by the driver who was charged with impaired driving and often did not have a high market value. Third, the seized vehicles were not being dis- posed of quickly. Fourth, the mechanisms for an inno- cent owner or a lienholder to recover a seized vehicle were not very effective. These factors led to some con- cern on the part of school officials, who worried about the rising costs and administrative burdens involved in storing seized vehicles, and ultimately to a number of news stories suggesting that the law was not serving one of its intended purposes, namely, to provide financial assistance to school systems by giving them the pro- ceeds from the sale of these vehicles.
The 1998 DWI amendments failed to address the basic desire of school boards—to transfer all responsibility for the seized vehicles to some law enforcement agency—but they did address most of the other con- cerns with respect to implementation of the 1997 law. The 1998 changes to the DWI vehicle seizure law—SL 1998-182—address its scope and coverage, the manner in which pretrial release of seized vehicles is handled, the timely disposition of these cases, the fees charged for storing seized vehicles, and the means of storing and selling seized vehicles. This article presents an overview of these amendments and the impact of these changes on the use of forfeited vehicles by the public schools.
