Vehicle Forfeiture

Vehicle forfeiture allows the state to confiscate permanently the vehicle of repeat DWI/DWI offenders or those who drive repeatedly with a suspended license. A Portland, Oregon, ordinance requires forfeiture of vehicles of offenders arrested for driving with a license suspended as a result of drunk driving. The forfeiture ordinance also applies to those arrested as habitual offenders who have committed three or more serious traffic offenses, at least one of which was driving while intoxicated. The flexibility included in some forfeiture ordinances results in a de facto combination vehicle impoundment/forfeiture law.

New York City began a DWI forfeiture initiative in early 1999 allowing the police to begin forfeiture actions against all offenders arrested for drunk driving, including first-time offenders. The forfeiture initiative is authorized by a provision of the New York City Administrative Code, which allows forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of a crime.

Where Is Vehicle Forfeiture Used?

Several states have legislation allowing vehicle forfeiture, but most rarely use it. In many jurisdictions, forfeiture is a discretionary sanction imposed by the courts (NTSB 2000). There are a few notable exceptions of well-utilized programs, including:

• Bend, Oregon, seizes vehicles of repeat offenders and of vehicles owned by others if they knowingly allowed the driver to use the vehicle (City of Bend, Oregon 1993).
  
  
• In Ohio, laws allow forfeiture for the fourth DWI, third DWS, or the first offense of driving an immobilized or plateimpounded vehicle within five years. If forfeiture occurs, the offender cannot register or title any vehicle in his or her name for five years (Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles 2003).
  
  
• The state of Michigan allows forfeiture for crimes ranging from a second DWI in seven years to felony DWI causing death or injury (State of Michigan 2002).
  
  
• New York City initiated a first offender vehicle forfeiture ordinance in February 1999; the city seized 1,458 cars in the first year of operation.
  
  
• In Portland, Oregon, 286 vehicles were permanently forfeited as of May 1997.
  
  
• Deschutes County, Oregon, has an ordinance allowing drivers to regain their vehicle if they pay an administrative fee and sign an agreement forfeiting their rights to the vehicle on a future arrest for DWI or driving while suspended.
  
  
• Anchorage, Alaska, has an impoundment/forfeiture ordinance that seeks 30 days impoundment for a first offense and forfeiture for a second or subsequent offense.
  
  
• Santa Barbara, California, also has an impoundment/forfeiture ordinance for unlicensed drivers that started January 1, 1995.

A 2002 survey found most California jurisdictions enforced vehicle impoundment for first-time DWS offenders, but very few enforced the vehicle forfeiture law for repeat offenders. Reasons for this included a perception the forfeiture law was too time consuming or not a priority among prosecutors. Also, in some cases, vehicle impoundment is tantamount to forfeiture because many drivers fail to retrieve their vehicle at the end of the impoundment period. Other issues limiting the widespread use of forfeiture are non-offender owners, low value of the vehicle seized, costs of storing vehicles and legal costs of seizing and selling vehicles (Peck and Voas 2002).

How Effective Is Vehicle Forfeiture?

A 2000 study found after New York City began a vehicle forfeiture program for first time offenders, DWI arrests declined by 22 percent and traffic crashes declined by 14 percent from the previous year. These declines, however, could not be attributed solely to the vehicle forfeiture ordinance (Peck and Voas 2002).

A 1995 study of a forfeiture program in Portland, Oregon, found offenders whose vehicles were seized re-offended only half as often as those whose vehicles were not seized (Crosby 1995). From 1990 through 1994, the recidivism rate for offenders whose cars were seized was only four percent.

Police officers in Santa Barbara, the sheriff’s department in Deschutes County and Anchorage city officials all consider their impoundment/forfeiture programs to be effective.

What Is the Cost of Vehicle Forfeiture?

In San Diego, the program has seized over 1,064 forfeitures since 1997 and is funded entirely by a $72 unlicensed driver assessment fee. There is also a $53 fee imposed on impounded vehicles, which is allocated to a negligent driver improvement fund (Peck and Voas 2002).

The 1995 study of vehicle forfeiture in Portland found the program was more costly to administer than it was to receive sales of seized property, although program proponents say it now operates close to break-even.

According to the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Department, the vehicle forfeiture program there has returned about $150,000 to area law enforcement agencies. And in the Anchorage program, revenues from administrative fees, attorneys’ fees, net auction proceeds and vehicle return bond forfeitures covered approximately three-fourths of the costs in 1996.

From its inception in January 1995 until mid-1997, Santa Barbara’s impoundment/forfeiture program impounded 4,338 vehicles, of which 243 met the criteria for forfeiture. Each vehicle was assessed a $45 administrative fee upon release. The net receipt from the sale of forfeited vehicles — after payment of liens, towing, release fees and additional administrative program costs — was over $66,000. The revenue was divided between the state and the city police department.

Where to Go for More Information on Vehicle Forfeiture

Crosby, I.B. 1995. Portland’s Asset Forfeiture Program: The Effectiveness of Vehicle Seizure in Reducing Rearrest Among "Problem" Drunk Drivers. A joint project by Reed College Public Policy Workshop and the City of Portland Bureau of Police Asset Forfeiture Unit.

Simpson, H.M., Mayhew, D.R., and Beirness, D.J. 1996. Dealing with the Hard Core Drinking Driver. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

Peck, R., and Voas, R.B. 2002. Forfeiture programs in California: why so few? Journal of Safety Research 33: 245–258.

National Transportation Safety Board. 2000. Safety Report: Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board.