| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
Share
|
In a move to enhance public safety and increase revenues, Southampton Town Councilwoman Anna Throne-Holst is proposing a pair of local laws, one that would crack down on owners of vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers, and another that would force certain entertainment establishments to pay for the police presence needed to keep the peace.
Ms. Throne-Holst has asked the town attorney’s office to incorporate her proposals into resolutions to be introduced before the Town Board.
According to Patrick Aube, the president of the Southampton Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, between 2,000 and 3,000 tickets per year are issued to drivers who are unlicensed. “It’s the number-one traffic infraction within the town,” Mr. Aube said. “But there is no penalty for those that own the car.”
That would change under Ms. Throne-Holst’s proposed local law, as her legislation would fine the owners of the vehicles up to $1,000. The councilwoman’s law also would mandate that the vehicle in question be impounded at a cost to the owner of $100 per day, not $25 per day, which is the current rate.
The PBA, Mr. Aube said, is supporting the councilwoman’s proposal.
“This would remove both the cars and drivers from the road,” Mr. Aube said, adding that when the owners come to retrieve their vehicles from the pound at the police department headquarters in Hampton Bays, they would be issued a ticket.
Because Ms. Throne-Holst is calling for a local law, the town would keep all of the revenue generated from the fines imposed on the owners as well as the money collected from impounding the vehicles. Currently, the state gets most of the revenue from tickets issued to unlicensed drivers, because driving without a license, or with a suspended license, is a state violation.
“The state gets all of the surcharges and keeps most of the fines,” said Renee Braithwaite, clerk of the town’s Justice Court. According to Ms. Braithwaite, for tickets issued to drivers without a license or with a suspended license, the town only keeps a $15 administrative fee. The rest of the money goes to the state, Ms. Braithwaite said, although she couldn’t give a specific breakdown as the fines imposed for traffic violations are set by individual judges on a case-by-case basis.
“This is a win-win for everybody,” Mr. Aube said. “You address a public safety issue, and you generate revenue for the town. I mean, do the math: some 2,000-plus violations times the $100 to $200 for the fines, and that’s not including the cost of retrieving the vehicles that were impounded. And the town keeps all of it.”
Town Councilman Chris Nuzzi, who said he is supporting Ms. Throne-Holst’s plan, said her local law would send a clear message to irresponsible vehicle owners. “We get an excessive number of these arrests with unlicensed drivers and it continues to be a problem here in town,” he said. “There needs to be more aggressive action.”
The majority of unlicensed drivers issued pulled over in Southampton, Mr. Aube said, are not the owners of the vehicles. “It’s clearly a mix of either parents who are away for the weekend and leave their keys hanging around and unlicensed teens taking the car, or it’s owners of companies allowing unlicensed workers to operate their vehicles,” he said.
According to Mr. Aube, a huge loophole exists in the state law for the owners who let unlawful drivers operate their cars, one that provides no recourse for Town Police. Ms. Throne-Holst’s initiative, Mr. Aube said, would close that loophole. As it is now written, the state law says that owners shall not “knowingly” let unlicensed drivers get behind the wheel of their vehicles. The councilwoman’s language, however, has no such ambiguity and simply puts the onus on the owners.
“If you don’t have your keys and you leave them hanging around, or are just giving them out, then you’re responsible for that vehicle,” Mr. Aube said. “So, unless you are willing to go to the district attorney’s office and tell them whoever was driving your vehicle stole it, then you’re going to be held accountable.”
Ms. Throne-Holst said the primary objective of her plan is public safety. “It doesn’t matter who is unlawfully behind the wheel, or why, or who owns the vehicle,” she said. “This is first and foremost about public safety.”
The councilwoman’s second proposal, if adopted, would require hot spots such as the Boardy Barn and Neptune Beach Club, both in Hampton Bays, to pay for the police presence necessary to maintain order there—something similar to what occurs when someone seeks a special event permit from the town.



Share
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
more



Add a comment
Total comments by politcal pawn: 46
And, why the taxpayers have been footing the bill for the extra police presence at private, profit driven clubs is a question that should be answered.
Of course, since the election is coming up, someone who is opposed to Ms. Throne-Holst as Town Supervisor will come up with an idiotic reason for oppsosing this measure, such as the clubs ... more will close down and that will affect the economy. Will a tear be shed by any local taxperys if Neptune's closes its doors?
Total comments by CommonSense: 53
Total comments by LovedHerTown: 45
I don't know about what goes on down on Dune Road anymore, but I do know that the Boardy Barm has, for almost 40 years, spent a large sum of money on its own security people, and even has its ... more own Tow Truck for when vehicles packed illegally or dangerously on its property. This is not an irresponsible establishment.
I agree with ovedHerTown about "jail time." Unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle + impaired driving? Go straight to the Riverhead hoosegow and have an egg sandwich tomorrow morning! The underlying authority for that is already on the (NYS) books!
The rest of it sounds like the Town PBA playing footsie with someone they hope will be the next Supervisor. NEVER trust anything a PBA representative utters for the media! It's all in service to getting more money for the police.
The Town should be able to maintain a tax surplus on what is collected in DWI/DUI fines during the Summer months from one end of the Town to the other!
Total comments by Frank Wheeler: 696
Or was that just one of his press releases?
Total comments by Frank Wheeler: 696
WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH THIS LAW:
Consider this: Junior gets a ticket and either forgets to go to court, or forgets to pay the fine. The dutiful court sends notice to the DMV and Junior's license is suspended. Friday night Junior is allowed to use the family car (to be home by 10:00 because these parents know where their children are). Junior ... more is fiddling with the radio and the car begins to drift to the shoulder. Responsible Officer pulls Junior over to see if Junior might be under the influence, after all it is Friday night. Junior is fine, but his license is suspended.
Here we go, family car is towed (incurring a towing charge) it is impounded (incurring an impound fee) a forfeiture hearing is scheduled (requiring a magistrate, an attorney for the town, and because the family car is at stake, the family attorney).
Maybe the magistrate is reasonable and does not forfeit the $20,000 family car. Now Dad can stop bumming rides to work as he has been doing every day for the past week while the family car was accruing impound fees. Maybe, after they have paid the family lawyer, they have the $200 to pay the tow operator and impound yard to get the car released.
Consider this: Dad likes to take a dip in the ocean after a long day at work, it is refreshing and helps get rid of the spare tire around his waist. Dad usually puts the keys under the mat, its Ponquogue Beach, its pretty safe. Dad leaves his wallet at home because he isn't going to carry it in his Speedo (alright Dad doesn't wear the Speedo, at least we hope he won't until the spare tire is gone) He doesn't leave his wallet in the car because Ponquoge Beach is safe, but not THAT safe.
Dad is like Junior, or Junior is like Dad. Dad is fiddling with the radio and the car begins to drift to the shoulder. Responsible officer pulls Dad over to see if he might be under the influence, after all lots of people like to have a few beers after work. Dad is fine, but when asked for his license and registration he has neither.
Here we go, Dad only has his wet swim suit and the sand that is beginning to chafe. Responsible Officer, while polite, knows that some people give someone else's name and date of birth if their own license is suspended. Responsible Officer knows the failure to produce a license provides her with reasonable suspicion to conclude that Dad is unlicensed.
The tow truck is called, the family car goes to impound, Dad goes to the precinct and hopes that Mom hasn't taken Junior to his ball practice yet so that she can bring his license and registration and this can all be cleared up. Dad is not as irresponsible as Junior, but the tow truck driver has to be paid and maybe some impound fees (the tow wasn't free).
Consider this: Juan is driving the landscaping truck and fails to signal a lane change. Responsible Officer pulls Juan over and Juan can't produce a driver's license. Once again, this is reasonable cause to call for the tow truck, and besides it isn't Stinchi Landscaping.
Assume the hearing is held and while the Truck Owner insists that Juan showed him a license when he was hired, the magistrate gets his coffee at the 7-11 and wasn't born yesterday. Truck is forfeited, Juan pays $50 (if he shows up in Court) Truck Owner loses a $15,000 truck (Okay, he didn't lose the truck it had a lien on it for $20,000 for the loan when he bought the truck) Truck Owner pays impound and towing fees and gets back to the 50 customers he has waiting for him.
TROUBLE AHEAD:
EVEN IF, after hiring Magistrates, more town attorneys, paying tow operators and impound yards a Forfeiture Program turns out to been wildly successful in raising revenues (that is what is what this is about) there is a bigger problem on the horizon.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the excessive fines clause. A fine must be proportional to the wrong committed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bajakajian
There will be attorneys to bring the civil rights actions to argue that the forfeiture of the Mercedes www.mbusa.com/ is excessive and unconstitutional. There will also be another attorney who advances the legal theory is that Juan Chavez is being treated differently than John Smith and that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. These actions not only provide for the return of the vehicle, but for attorneys fees as well.
NOT AN ORIGINAL IDEA
Suffolk County has just such a Forfeiture Law and whether that is truly successful from a revenue standpoint (County Attorney Salaries, Magistrate Salaries, Tow Truck Operator's costs) has yet to be completely analyzed, there remains the liability for having actually forfeited vehicles.
The Statute of Limitations on a Civil Rights Action is 3 years so the County could be tagged for compensation for 3 years worth of forfeitures and associated attorneys fees before it undoes what has been done.
WHILE THERE IS A SHALLOW POLITICAL APPEAL, THIS LAW WILL PUT THE TOWN IN DEEP WATER.
Total comments by Publius: 307
Add a comment