Comments on: Wisconsin’s Dubious “Honor” http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/ Blogging Liberally In The Badger State Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:43:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Kay http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-728 Kay Fri, 09 May 2008 06:40:58 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-728 Having lived on lakes in the past I know that even the DNR can take your boat or vehicle away if you are hunting/fishing illegally in sever cases such as shooting at Bald Eagles. Having lived on lakes in the past I know that even the DNR can take your boat or vehicle away if you are hunting/fishing illegally in sever cases such as shooting at Bald Eagles.

]]> By: Zachary http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-729 Zachary Thu, 08 May 2008 13:18:23 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-729 Actually Sam, I think it's more about the car being used in the commission of the crime, not the fact that it was bought with the proceeds of said crime. In fact, there are already laws on the books that allow for the seizure of cars and boats used in the commission of any violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921: <blockquote>29.931(2)(a) (a) The department and its wardens shall seize and hold, subject to the order of the court for the county in which the alleged offense was committed, any vehicle , boat or object declared by this chapter to be a public nuisance, or which they have probable cause to believe is being used in violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921. If it is proven that the vehicle , boat or object is a public nuisance or that within 6 months previous to the seizure the vehicle , boat or object was used in violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921, it shall be confiscated if the court directs in its order for judgment.</blockquote> Further, here's the section relating to drug offenses: <blockquote> 961.55(1) (1) The following are subject to forfeiture: ... 961.55(1)(d) (d) All vehicles which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in pars. (a) and (b) or for the purpose of transporting any property or weapon used or to be used or received in the commission of any felony under this chapter, but: </blockquote> I'm thinking that if there are laws already on the books - and presumably they've withstood challenges in court - then it shouldn't be that big a deal to put similar laws on the books for drunk driving. Actually Sam, I think it’s more about the car being used in the commission of the crime, not the fact that it was bought with the proceeds of said crime. In fact, there are already laws on the books that allow for the seizure of cars and boats used in the commission of any violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921:

29.931(2)(a)
(a) The department and its wardens shall seize and hold, subject to the order of the court for the county in which the alleged offense was committed, any vehicle , boat or object declared by this chapter to be a public nuisance, or which they have probable cause to believe is being used in violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921. If it is proven that the vehicle , boat or object is a public nuisance or that within 6 months previous to the seizure the vehicle , boat or object was used in violation of any of the laws for which the department and its wardens have enforcement authority under s. 29.921, it shall be confiscated if the court directs in its order for judgment.

Further, here’s the section relating to drug offenses:

961.55(1)
(1) The following are subject to forfeiture:

…

961.55(1)(d)
(d) All vehicles which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in pars. (a) and (b) or for the purpose of transporting any property or weapon used or to be used or received in the commission of any felony under this chapter, but:

I’m thinking that if there are laws already on the books - and presumably they’ve withstood challenges in court - then it shouldn’t be that big a deal to put similar laws on the books for drunk driving.

]]> By: Sam http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-727 Sam Thu, 08 May 2008 05:18:26 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-727 Because the drug dealer's car was bought with funds obtained illegally via his drug trade, making his car seizable. Unless the drunk driver's car is somehow itself a product of the drunk driving, the same cannot be said. I'm sure there's some other way around it, but I don't know what it is. Because the drug dealer’s car was bought with funds obtained illegally via his drug trade, making his car seizable. Unless the drunk driver’s car is somehow itself a product of the drunk driving, the same cannot be said. I’m sure there’s some other way around it, but I don’t know what it is.

]]> By: Zachary http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-726 Zachary Thu, 08 May 2008 02:36:51 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-726 Sam, I don't proclaim to be an expert on the ins and outs of Wisconsin's state code, but how would codifying the seizure of a vehicle from a repeat drunk driver differ from the seizure of a car from a drug dealer? Sam, I don’t proclaim to be an expert on the ins and outs of Wisconsin’s state code, but how would codifying the seizure of a vehicle from a repeat drunk driver differ from the seizure of a car from a drug dealer?

]]> By: Sam http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-730 Sam Thu, 08 May 2008 01:51:44 +0000 http://bloggingblue.com/2008/05/07/wisconsins-dubious-honor/#comment-730 Yeah, see there's this problem with taking away people's cars. It's called the Fifth Amendment. To wit: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In other words, I'm pretty sure you'd have to pay them for the car. Yeah, see there’s this problem with taking away people’s cars. It’s called the Fifth Amendment. To wit: “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In other words, I’m pretty sure you’d have to pay them for the car.

]]>