A Medina man misplaced his automobile, his solely asset, after his third driving-under-the-influence conviction, inflicting him to lose his job. James O’Malley was additionally unable to get one other automobile, since family paid a lot of the price for the primary one, a pickup price $31,000.
In a case the Ohio Supreme Court is now considering, O’Malley and his attorneys argue that seizing a automobile price $31,000 for an offense the place potential fines have been far much less quantities to a violation of the U.S. Structure’s Eighth Modification prohibition on extreme fines and that the regulation itself violates the Structure’s equal safety clause.
The Medina County Municipal Court docket choose who presided over the unique case in 2018 had argued that seizure of the truck was not excessive since the Medina man personally only had $5,000 invested in it and had moved in along with his grandmother, so wasn’t struggling financially. A divided appeals courtroom panel upheld that ruling.
There’s no dispute that O‘Malley had three operating-under-the-influence (OVI) convictions inside 10 years — activating the state felony forfeiture regulation. However a 2014 Chevy Silverado valued at $31,000 was seized for an offense the place the fantastic would have been $2,750 in any other case, based on the legallyspeakingohio.com weblog,
In keeping with the weblog, Ohio regulation “states that if the automobile used within the OVI offense is registered within the identify of the offender, the courtroom should conduct a compulsory felony forfeiture continuing. Pursuant to that statute, O’Malley’s truck was seized, and forfeiture proceedings have been begun.”
Ohio’s felony forfeiture legal guidelines were changed in 2007 to require, amongst different issues, that the courtroom “show by clear and convincing proof that the quantity or worth of the property topic to forfeiture is proportionate to the severity of the offense.”
On this case, Medina County Municipal Decide Gary Werner discovered that O’Malley’s $5,000 funding was “proportional” to a $2,750 fantastic.
But the truck that was seized was price much more. And, was that proportional to the monetary hardship this prompted to O’Malley when he misplaced his solely technique of attending to work, needed to transfer in along with his grandmother and prompted his household to lose their funding in his technique of revenue (alongside, presumably, along with his means to drive to the pub to drink.)
So what does our Editorial Board Roundtable suppose? Was this an extreme fantastic? Or an acceptable regulation and acceptable punishment for repeated impaired driving?
Leila Atassi, managing producer, public curiosity and advocacy:
The forfeiture of the truck is clearly extreme, in comparison with the fantastic. The regulation requires that the worth of forfeited property be proportionate to the severity of the offense. And on this case, the worth of the truck was $31,000. It doesn’t matter who purchased it for him or how a lot of his personal cash he had invested in it.
Thomas Suddes, editorial author:
For an enormous variety of causes, felony forfeiture legal guidelines basically are or ought to be extremely suspect constitutionally, no matter one’s politics.
Ted Diadiun, columnist:
A correct ruling on a correct regulation. It clearly doesn’t preserve routine offenders from getting behind the wheel once more, however it would make that tougher. And it’s onerous to work up a lot sympathy for any individual whose household bails him out with an costly automobile, and who then continues to place himself and others in danger by driving drunk.
Eric Foster, columnist:
It’s a little bit of psychological gymnastics to ignore the precise worth of O’Malley’s automobile. Would we be OK with the forfeiture of a Ferrari if O’Malley personally paid solely $5,000 for it? And why would that regulation not think about the harmless grandparents? The courtroom successfully took cash from them and gave it to regulation enforcement. Is that what we would like?
Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:
The appliance of this regulation appears extreme and inconsistent. We’d like options the place repeat offenders are pretty and persistently punished whereas not financially ruining them and their household. We don’t need to create situations the place the household is worse off because of the errors of one among their members.
Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:
This case is attempting to separate hairs on extreme forfeiture, since most autos are price considerably greater than levied fines. The actual fact stays that the defendant has three DUI convictions, the final so extreme he couldn’t bear in mind his handle. I’ve no sympathy for unrepentant drunk drivers, and he sealed his destiny by repeatedly ignoring the implications of his actions.
Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:
O’Malley ought to have thought of the influence of shedding his truck earlier than he drove drunk. Penalties for 2 earlier DUI convictions additionally didn’t dissuade him. When he’s intoxicated, his truck turns into a weapon. The courts ought to first shield those that is likely to be injured or killed if O’Malley drinks and drives once more.
Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion:
This case illustrates how arbitrarily and improperly Ohio felony forfeiture statutes could be utilized and the way cavalierly courts generally deal with these with meager belongings, ruling, as on this case, that as a result of an individual lives modestly (with a relative), he doesn’t want extra. The excessive courtroom ought to treatment this injustice.
Have one thing to say about this subject?
* Send a letter to the editor, which shall be thought of for print publication.