Comments about ‘Senate OKs bill to seize vehicles of repeat DUI offenders’

I have felt that our liquor laws were from the dark ages. I do not drink or smoke but it is embarrassing to talk to people out of state because of our weird laws. For example having to mix the drinks in rooms away from the eye of the public or not being able to have more than one drink at a table. However my wife was involved in a head on collision with a 6 time repeat offender. I believe this law is a good law and would also like all repeat offenders to have to wear an ankle bracelet and that for the car to start they would be required to place their finger on a pad that tells the car they are impaired or not. I also agree with raising the cigarette taxes and the money used for treatment.

This is a good start. Now, we need to make it a third degree felony for the first offense, DUI. There isn't anyone operating a motor vehicle who doesn't know drunk driving or driving on narcotics isn't against the law. If they choose to drive, the penality should be much stiffer, since they know and must realize the chances of injuring or killing someone. If they can not understand and comprehend that, they have no business operating a motor vehicle. Who cares what people from other states think? If they are coming to Utah to break the law, stay home!

I always had the impression that vehicles could be impounded and siezed with existing laws. The law should also include improperly registered and uninsured vehicles be seized. They are all driving infractions costing Utahns millions of dollars a year in unpaid accident reparations. I have a feeling though that this could backfire as these individuals will borrow or confiscate vehicles of other owners, how will this law protect these individuals? To seize property of others not involved with the DUI has to be considered and spelled out in the law. Because a driver is driving someone elses vehicle does not make the owner liable, unless they willfully allow these individuals to take the vehicle. This law should also include that a conviction is not required to impound or confiscate the vehicle. Anyone driving that test positive for any amount of drugs or excessive alcohol should be cause to impound or sieze a vehicle, even on the first offense.

As I recall a few years ago a fellow driving North from St. George, crossed the center line and hit a south bound car. The driver of the north bound car was under the influence.

As it turned out his license had been revoked. He was restricted from driving a vehicle. But here he was behind the wheel of a car.

Taking a license and a vehicle will not prevent a determined person from driving. The best way is to lock the person up for a few years.

The courts and the attorneys are the problem. Tie the driver to his attorney. If he drives drunk again after his attorney convinces the court that it should be soft, put him and his attorney in Jail.

It is about time. I recommend everyone interested in this issue read the arrests made each day in the paper. I have been following these arrests here in St. George area for the past year and have been absolutely alarmed at the number of DUI arrests of repeat offenders with suspended or revoked licenses. It must be 10 times as great in the more populous counties up north. I contacted the state legislators from this area over 6 months ago recommending seizure of the vehicles involved but received not one reply. Made me wonder just how concerned they were with my safety on the roads.

to "What?": does your name start w/Adolph? Improper registration and lack of insurance is caused mainly by poverty and/or onorous laws that allow insurers to charge usurious prices for insurance, and are not crimes on the scale of drunk driving. They are known as "victimless crimes", and there are way too many of those type, thanks to people like you who feel society must punish every supposed infraction with maximum pain. Victimless crimes are patently unConstitutional, since the proper role of government is only to protect everyone in the free exercise of their inherent rights. --NOT to mold society into a compliant little flock of sheeple.

NOW, drunk driving is not a victimless crime, so its on the other side of the scale.

Also, before you start assuming that I must be one of those criminal "scofflaws": my registrations and insurance are maintained current.

CONTINUED: As long as my neighbor does his best to stay in his lane, and operate his vehicle in a safe manner, I don't care if he has paid his "privilege taxes".
The exception here, are the illegal immigrant drivers who are violating the law by entering my country without invitation. They should have no privileges (including driving) but to walk back to the border where they crossed, and be escorted back into their homeland. And we should lock the door behind them.
--unless this illegal immigrant has committed a vicimizing crime. Then he should be locked up in our penal system until his debt is paid, like anyone else in this country who HARMS someone else, THEN sent home.

Are there any protections for INNOCENT Property Owners or is this just another attempt to let the police grab revenue?

How about seizing vehicles if they are illegal aliens, that would be a good way to enforce the law too.

what about cell phones, more accidents are caused by distracted driving than impaired driving.