New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

Latest post Mon, May 22 2017 7:02 PM by Duff101. 1,655 replies.
  • Thu, Jul 14 2016 11:28 PM In reply to

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    persistentlyignorantgovernor:

    I stated that if this were a law instead of a regulation it would be shot down in no time due to the fact that it would be considered unconstitutional.

    The fact that it is a regulation rather than a state statute does not make a difference in whether it violates the federal constitution. If the exact same rule would be unconstitutional as a statute then it would also be unconstitutional as a regulation. A regulation might violate the NY constitution, however, where a state statute would not because a regulation that exceeds the scope of the agency’s powers as granted either in the NY constitution or by the legislature would violate the NY constitution. And indeed, that is one of the arguments being made in the cases before the NY Court of Appeals now: that the DMV exceeded its authority and effectively acted in the role of the legislature.

    It is true, though, that the legislature has the power to pass a law that revokes these regulations and replaces them with some other set of rules to deal with drivers who have repeated DUI and other serious driving offenses. However, getting the attention of enough legislators to make that happen is easier said than done. It requires a strong, consistent effort at convincing the legislators that the current regulations of the DMV are wrong and that there are better solutions to the problem. You have to keep at it; it can sometimes take several years of lobbying to get enough momentum going to get something through. If you just make a one time, half-hearted effort you’re not likely to make the impact needed to get a bill through.

    persistentlyignorantgovernor:

    My suggestion at this point is that everyone that reads this immediately sit down and write a letter to Senator Sue Serinos office.

    Actually, I would suggest something a bit different: that you each write your own state senator and assembly member, talk to them when they have constitutent meetings, etc, and get your friends and neighbors to do the same. And then keep up the effort. The reason is that politicians take letters and calls from people in their own districts much more seriously because those are the people who can vote for them in the next election. Hearing from lots of their own voters is what makes the biggest impact on them.

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 10:17 AM In reply to

    • Ford
      Lawyer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 16 2000
    • Posts 12,824

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    Congratulations.  You might want to retract that email to the NY lawyer.

    The AL license probably will not be good all over the country.  It clearly won't be valid in NY, for instance.  And my state - CLEAR across the country - has a "driving while suspended" statute that covers anybody who is driving in my state with notice that their license or privilege to drive is currently suspended in any jurisdiction.  (It gets messy with multiple jurisdictions in play and prosecutors usually do not want to deal with it at trial, but the cops are more than happy to arrest you for it and tow your vehicle.)

    Obviously, I have no clue if you need to drive outside AL, but this is a concern you now have.  

     

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 10:54 AM In reply to

    • KingCuomo
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Jan 14 2014
    • NY
    • Posts 64

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    have fun in Alabama..... can you make a promise to stop posting here?

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 11:09 AM In reply to

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    I have read the previous court rulings where the court sided with the state on the fact that these regulations can not be considered ex post facto because of the fact that they are a reg. Ex post facto only applies to criminal law.If these regs were in the form of a law, ex post facto protection would apply, and I for one, could not be denied driving priviledges based solely on convictions from 1998 and before. Convictions that I have served my sentences and paid my fines for, in full, almost 2 decades ago. That being said, the Dmv IS skating around my right to not be punished twice for the same offense, simply by enacting this regulation. 

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 1:05 PM In reply to

    • m j c04
      Consumer
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Apr 27 2015
    • NY
    • Posts 108

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    You will need a lawyer when the state of Alabama finds out you willingly lied on their application for a Welch license and defrauded the govt saying you were a permanent resident of that state. Clearly your not BC you still live in NY. Everything will catch up. Someone like you who rolls the dice as much as you do will crash and burn eventually. Now quit your whining and play by the rules and stop posting every move you make about your life this is turning into Facebook.

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 3:22 PM In reply to

    • Ford
      Lawyer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Mar 16 2000
    • Posts 12,824

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    Careful there.  I suspect the analysis would be akin to that done to the sex offender registration laws.  That the law is not punitive, but regulatory.  And the use of the word "regulatory" does not mean that statutes are ex post facto by virtue of being a statute rather than a regulation.

    Sex offender registries were first.  DV registries and DUI registries will be around the corner.  Thhe government cannot keep enough track of its "citizens."

    I'm not in NY.

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 3:43 PM In reply to

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    I just looked up sex offender registration laws. Only dirtbag sex offenders convicted after 1996 are required by law to register. Any convictions prior to that are not required. Guess why, because the laws didnt exist when they were convicted and it would be considered ex post facto to add to they're sentence after they had been sentenced.

    So there you have it... We are treated worse than child molesters... Thanks for clearing that up!!

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 4:45 PM In reply to

    • tommyh
      Consumer
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Jun 3 2013
    • NY
    • Posts 94

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    yes Billy, the points are next to the violation, I called albany to make sure I was right .

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 4:58 PM In reply to

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    persistentlyignorantgovernor:

    I have read the previous court rulings where the court sided with the state on the fact that these regulations can not be considered ex post facto because of the fact that they are a reg.

    Then you misunderstood the cases you read. Simply because a rule is in a statute rather than a regulation does not make it a criminal law. The Constitution’s prohibition on ex-post facto laws only applies to criminal laws. Most statutes are not, in fact, criminal laws and thus that prohibition does not apply to those statutes. Statutes setting the requirements for issuing driver’s licenses are not criminal laws, and so the ex-post facto prohibition in the Constitution does not apply to those statutes. It is not whether rule is in a regulation or statute that makes the difference. What makes the difference is whether the law or regulation is a criminal one.

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 5:45 PM In reply to

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    Word for word, "The prohibition (ex post facto) applies only to penal statutes and not to regulations such as those at issue here."  I may have misworded it but I didnt misunderstand anything. 

     The governor and the Dmv dodged around the constitution by creating a" regulation" that punishes people for past offenses. If it were "penal statute" it would in no uncertain terms be considered ex post facto and  unconstitutional to add to anyones past sentence, a lifetime revocation.

     When their basis for a lifetime revocation is strictly based on past, decades old offenses, it IS ex post facto. No matter what they call it. 

     

  • Fri, Jul 15 2016 5:45 PM In reply to

    • Bigg Al
      Consumer
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Oct 27 2015
    • FL
    • Posts 27

    Re: New NYS Repeat DWI offender regulations questions

    Taxagent I believe you are incorrect, here's why.

    A friend of mine was convicted of domestic violence against his wife in the late 80's. In 1996 President Clinton signed the domestic violence gun ban referred to as "The Lautenberg Amendment" and my friend is currently banned from possessing, owning or purchasing firearms due to his domestic violence conviction against his wife which occurred in the late 1980's.

    It seems to me the Government and Politicians pretty much do what they want to whomever they want. 

Page 72 of 111 (1656 items) « First ... < Previous 70 71 72 73 74 Next > ... Last » | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community