Brown Co. seeks to seize drunk drivers' vehicles
GREEN BAY - Brown County will ask the state for help in stiffening some of the weakest drunken driving laws in the land.
In a late-night vote on Wednesday, the County Board agreed to ask the state Legislature to allow judges to order the seizure of vehicles driven by repeat drunken drivers.
Though the final vote was 23-2 in favor of the measure, a number of county supervisors raised concerns about how it would be applied. Concerns also exist on the state level, where the head of the state's largest police union and a lawmaker who has battled for tougher OWI laws say the measure faces an uphill battle.
RELATED:Award-winning local deputy calls for OWI culture change
RELATED:Lawmaker proposes seizing cars from repeat OWI offenders
The resolution, drafted at the request of Andy Nicholson, who represents part of Green Bay's east side, asks state lawmakers to grant Wisconsin's circuit court judges the power to order sheriffs to seize vehicles from people who have repeatedly been found guilty of OWI, provided the driver owns the vehicle.
The request does not spell out the number of offenses Nicholson believes should trigger seizure, though he has said he does not intend to target first-time offenders.
Brown County's chief prosecutor said he's taking a wait-and-see attitude about the proposal, which would reinstate a power taken away from judges in 2009 in favor of a law that emphasized the use of an ignition-interlock device. That change was intended to reinforce the requirement that a driver needs to be sober, without taking away his or her means to travel to work and support a family.
"Seizure was a tool at the judges' disposal in the past, and it apparently wasn't frequently used," District Attorney David Lasee said. "Still, doing something rather than doing nothing might not be a bad idea."
Wisconsin has some of the weakest drunken-driving laws in the nation, despite ongoing pleas from local lawmakers and police for changes to the state's alcohol-fueled culture, including tougher penalties for repeat offenders.
OWI is not a felony in Wisconsin until the fourth offense. A first offense is a municipal ordinance violation and does not require the driver to appear in court.
RELATED: Wisconsin can look to NY for OWI laws that work
RELATED: 'Five strikes' anti-OWI bill gains momentum
Other states charge felonies as early as the second offense. New York will charge a felony for a first offense if a driver has a particularly high blood-alcohol level, or has a child in the car.
Still, recent attempts to toughen Wisconsin's OWI laws and bring them closer to regulations in effect in many other states — including a failed proposal last year to permanently revoke the licenses of drivers convicted of five OWIs — have made little progress.
'It's always frustrating'
A De Pere Republican who sponsored the "five strikes and you're out" bill in the state Assembly last year sounded less than confident recently when asked if he thought the legislature would allow judges to resume seizing vehicles from drunk drivers.
"It's going to be an issue of what's our priority for the session," said Rep. Andre Jacque, who said he is working on a bill to close loopholes in laws governing ignition-interlock devices. "It's always frustrating to see how difficult it can be to get new OWI laws passed."
Seizing vehicles used in the commission of crimes is not a new idea. Police drug units, including the one headed by the Brown County Sheriff's Office, often use vehicles seized from people who used them to traffic narcotics. In some cases, officials plaster the vehicles with decals bearing sayings like "seized from a drug dealer" in the hopes that the message will deter potential drug criminals.
But police officials said seizing the vehicles of habitual drunk drivers could create problems for their departments.
Brown County Sheriff John Gossage described a scenario in which he would be required to do things normally expected of a car dealer: He would have to devote space to maintaining inventory, maintain those vehicles and hold regular sales to turn seized assets into cash. While some vehicles might generate income, those in poor condition could create headaches for long periods of time.
Jim Palmer, president of the state's largest police union, said chiefs and sheriffs would have to add duties at a time they're being asked to do more with less.
"There is a reason that the approach of seizing of vehicles was abandoned by the state several years ago," said Palmer, president of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. "The resources, manpower, and time needed to implement those seizures were significant, and the practice failed to reduce recidivism."
The proposal to again allow seizures, he added, is cumbersome and carries "serious deficiencies."
Other concerns raised
Concerns about OWI-related seizures span a range of issues, local lawmakers said.
Paul Ballard of Bellevue, who ultimately supported the measure, said seizure could create extreme hardships for households than can only afford one vehicle — an OWI arrest could deny other members of a family a way to get to work or school. That could be a particularly challenging for a family with no access to public transportation.
Aaron Linssen of De Pere, who said he is "vehemently opposed to" permitting seizure, said convicted drunk drivers already pay high penalties, And, he said, taking cars away would have little effect on people who have an alcohol dependency.
"People don’t realize what the penalties are," said Linssen, an attorney who has defended people charges with OWI. "They’re already fined thousands of dollars. Their license is suspended … this is, quite frankly a joke. You're not addressing the real problem."
Nicholson, when he first pitched the idea months ago, acknowledged that it isn't perfect. But he said anything that could reduce drunken driving would be a positive.
Linssen and Jim Kneiszel, also of De Pere, were the lone supervisors to oppose the proposal.
dschneid@greenbaypressgazette.com and follow him on Twitter @PGDougSchneider