I assume all other CA's office have been flooded with DWLIs. At one time I heard there was interest in new legislation that would reduce a DWLI first to a Class C, a second to a Class B, and a third a Class A.

I was wondering if any legislation is in the pipeline on this issue and if any other CA's would support such legislation.

Let me know.

I'm with ya, brother. We're stuffed to the gills with 'em. Our jail is threatening to refuse any non-warrant book-ins, and our friend the DWLI is a substantial contributor to the overcrowding that's driving the threat.

At the same time, the offense is largely part of a cycle driven by the crime tax ... er, surcharge. Given the figures I've heard Shannon pass along, we can safely presume it's not going away. Given that facet of the problem, and the fact that all license-related offenses seem to be viewed as fertile ground for surcharges, would we simply be shifting the trial burden down a judicial level? Do you posters and lurkers think that JPs will rise up in righteous indignation over such a proposed cramdown onto their dockets?

Some legislators have been sympathetic to changing the Driver Responsibility Program until they learn that the program is putting $3 million per week into the state coffers. That's real money, even around the Capitol!

Like you, Joel, I hear lots of people discussing the option of making DWLI a Class C, but so far no one has taken it to the next step and filed a bill. Until that happens, it's all just idle chatter.

We seem to have two groups of DWLI offenders - those who clear their DLs and go away, never to return and those who shrug, say "what the heck" and proceed to get another...and another...and another. They don't bother with insurance or anything else, because they don't have the $.

The only way that the second group will even curtail their driving will be if they don't have a car. What if we could forfeit the vehicle after X number of DWLI convictions?

quote:

---

The only way that the second group will even curtail their driving will be if they don't have a car. What if we could forfeit the vehicle after X number of DWLI convictions?

---

Talk to your judges and officers. This is where there may be benefit to citing for "no liability insurance" if the DWLI driver isn't insured. I believe that after 3 "no insurance" convictions, vehicles can be impounded for 180 days, all costs assessed against the vehicle/owner. More often than not, folks aren't going to be able to pay 180*30 ($5400) minimum to get their car back...

Mike

[This message was edited by Mike Reed on 12-29-06 at .]

Is a suspended _ID_ "DWLI", and 'not clear' reinstatement fee required? If so can someone point me to case law or a statute to give to my LT?

Seeing more and more of these, but we aren't allowed to file DWLI cases on them.

yes, a suspended ID card is DWLI b/c its the privilege to drive that is suspended.

see this thread:

https://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=317107713&r=101100813#101100813

if the suspension has expired, but the resinstatement fee has not been paid, "not clear" then many consider it not to be DWLI, but is Class C No DL. See Allen v. State, 48 S.W.3d 775 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) which held that a Driving While License Suspended conviction cannot be based upon a driver's failure to pay a reinstatement fee once the ALR suspension period has ended.

That impoundment option, from 601.261--how does that take place? The judge orders it in court and then the Sheriff's office coordinates calling a wrecker service to get it--is the Court order enough or are more papers required? Or the defendant is asked to voluntarily turn it over in court that day? Does anyone have any copies of orders filed to get his ball rolling? If some of our repeat offenders had to show two years worth of coverage before return of their vehicle, we would have many fewer DWLI's....but what about the blue collar types who won't even be able to pay in 180 days--do they still not get their vehicle back if they can't pay the $15 per day fee?

I have not personally been involved in any of these, but my understanding is that Williamson County has (may have?) some JP's that are issuing impoundment orders under Ch 601. I don't know of any municipalities that are doing this routinely, but I think that most municipal judges either aren't aware of the statute or their cities don't have the "how-to's" worked out with the local SO for impoundment procedures under a judge's order. I would think that your local JP probably has a better shot, as their Constables are used to seizing vehicles on court order.

Just my thoughts...