Tough Policy on Drunk Driving Has N.Y. Wary

Hours after New York City launched one of the nation’s toughest crackdowns on drunk driving--vowing to seize the cars of suspected intoxicated motorists on the spot--residents Tuesday struggled to absorb the impact of a controversial policy that is being watched across the nation.

Advocates, such as Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and national anti-drunk driving organizations, said the new police rule is long overdue punishment for a crime that kills 16,000 people in America each year. But critics said the policy is overly harsh and will penalize motorists before they have a day in court.

Under the New York procedure, which is the toughest of any large city and stronger than similar statutes in 21 states, people arrested on suspicion of drunk driving can only get their cars back if they are acquitted in court. If convicted, the city will move to sell their cars in civil forfeiture proceedings.

The new police procedure, which was pushed by Giuliani, is unique because it applies to first-time as well as repeat offenders. And Monday night’s arrests showed what New Yorkers can expect: Police officers confiscated three cars, including one owned by a heavily intoxicated Queens man who had eight DWI arrests on his record, and who was on probation for a conviction.

Police also took the vehicle of a young Polish immigrant who had never been arrested for drunk driving, and whose blood-alcohol level was barely above the 0.10 legal limit.

“Whatever side of this debate you are on, there is a very simple way to stay out of this problem,” Giuliani said at a news conference Monday. “Do not drink and get behind the wheel of a car. Just do not do it. There is no excuse for it.”

New York’s drunk driving policy is the latest in Giuliani’s “quality of life” initiatives; he has led campaigns against jaywalking, street vendors, littering, rude cab drivers and other urban nuisances. Like those efforts, the DWI policy has drawn praise (“Zero tolerance deserves 100% backing,” said a Daily News editorial) and strong criticism.

Promising a quick legal appeal, Norman Siegel, head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the policy is “excessive” and unconstitutional because it punishes people before they are found guilty. Other critics said the program could unfairly penalize suspects’ spouses and family members, whose employment may depend on use of a car.

“First they hang you, then you get the trial,” said writer Sidney Zion. “A kid gets picked up in one of Rudy’s roadblocks and he’s over the limit on the Breathalyzer--there goes the family car. And probably there goes the old man’s job, if he needs the car to work. . . . We the people don’t need a Breathalyzer to know when a politician is drunk with power.”

Both sides are uncertain how the policy will actually work. Although police unveiled their guidelines last month, they only began spelling out details this week. In a surprising disclosure, for example, officials said motorists might not get their cars back even if they are found not guilty of drunk driving in a criminal court proceeding.

Citing what he called an “O.J. Simpson” precedent, Giuliani said New York may still choose to file civil actions to take vehicles from motorists who are ultimately acquitted but against whom there is a “preponderance” of evidence.

“The jury in the civil case obviously thought O.J. Simpson was responsible, and awarded $33 million to the Goldman family, even though he had not been convicted,” the mayor said. “That’s the kind of thing that could happen here.”

But that could lead to new problems, critics said. Last year, only 42 of the city’s 6,368 DWI arrests went to trial, according to police records. Now, with no other way to reclaim their cars, motorists may flood the courts with new cases.

Critics also fear racism: Will officers unfairly penalize minorities in drunk driving arrests? Some worry that the policy could pit officers against minorities at a time when the city is tense over the police shooting earlier this month of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed vendor.

The crackdown, which seems to have caught many New Yorkers by surprise, was not prompted by a rise in drunk driving fatalities. The number of such deaths last year dropped 35.3% in New York City, from 51 to 33. Nationwide, 16,189 people died in alcohol-related traffic accidents last year, a 5.6% decline from the previous year, according to statistics compiled by the National Traffic Safety Administration.

In California, there were 1,314 traffic fatalities related to drunk driving last year, second only to Texas’ 1,748. The state’s overall percentage of traffic deaths linked to alcohol was 35.6%, down from 40.2% the year before.

Despite these downward trends, many New Yorkers offered support for the new policy. To some, it seems like the only way to get control of a problem that defies easy solutions.

“In this city, and all over the country, people get their licenses suspended umpteen times for drunk driving, but they still drive and cops can’t do anything about it,” said Gene Carlson, a regular at the Old Town Bar, a 110-year-old saloon in Manhattan’s Union Square. “When I’m drunk, I can barely stumble down the subway stairs, let alone park a car, so this is a wake-up call. I can’t blame the mayor for trying it.”

Two bar stools down, Carlos Perez finished a glass of red wine and offered grudging approval for the new initiative.

“This country has been weak in going after the drunk drivers . . . and anybody who has too much to drink and drives in this town is crazy,” he said. “You gotta be nuts to do it.”

It’s too early to tell if the New York policy will spread to other areas, but at least one politician--Thomas S. Gulotta, chief executive of Long Island’s Nassau County--said he will give police similar powers to sell the cars of drunk drivers.

Times researcher Lisa Meyer contributed to this story.