Cops confiscate 60,000 car for felony speeding

[RottieGrrrl]

This story disturbed me terribly. I am no fan of some jerk who blows through town at 127 miles an hour, but taking his car is theft. Policing for profit. There is no excuse and I think we should all be concerned because who's next? The person who has a small amount of drugs/paraphanlia on them while drving, the elderly person who grows a pot plant in their yard for their own purposes? This is a terrible abuse of what was supposed to be a law that confiscated profits made through criminal activities.

Driver's felony is D.A.R.E. program gain

A MAN CAUGHT DRIVING 127 MPH WANTED HIS CAR GARAGED. BUT PLAINFIELD POLICE HAD A PLAN FOR THE DODGEE VIPER.

June 18, 2007

By JANET LUNDQUIST Staff Writer

PLAINFIELD -- Patrol Officer Mario Marzetta was about finished running radar on Essington Road on a March afternoon when the catch of the day flew by.

He heard it before he saw it -- the engine of a 2000 Dodge Viper revving high before the car blew by him at 127 mph in a 35 mph zone.

Officer Mario Marzetta stands with the Plainfield Police Department's new D.A.R.E. car. Marzetta was the arresting officer when the 2000 Dodge Viper was seized in March 2006 on numerous traffic offenses.

(Corey R. Minkanic/Staff Photographer)

Turning heads, Officer Mario Marzetta takes his first test drive in Plainfield's new D.A.R.E. car.

The driver was eventually charged with felony fleeing and eluding police, while his car became the property of the Plainfield Police Department.

Now the shiny black Viper with a cognac leather interior has a fresh-paint detail and is outfitted with lights, ready to serve as the department's new D.A.R.E. car.

The car's custom paint job was done by Jeff Brown of Todd's Body Shop and features an airbrushed American flag design on the hood. Others who donated services to customize the vehicle include Chicago Communication, Ray O'Herron, Plainfield Signs and Code 3.

The D.A.R.E. car, which will be taken to community events, block parties, parades and schools, will make its public debut Tuesday at Cruise Night in downtown Plainfield. Cruise Night is held every Tuesday night on Lockport Street through Aug. 28.

Attempted getaway

The arrest was made on an afternoon in March 2006. Marzetta chased the joy rider north from 135th to 127th Street, where the Viper swerved left around two cars at the intersection and turned right.

The Viper weaved in and out of an industrial park before the driver hit Weber Road traffic and tried to hide in a nearby parking lot.

As the driver, a Naperville resident, was being fingerprinted -- unaware he was losing his luxury ride -- he asked Marzetta if the car could be stored indoors to shelter it from the elements. The vehicle has 17,000 miles on it and is in like-new condition.

When Marzetta dropped the man off at the county jail, he "thanked" him for the car.

Felony seizures

Vehicles involved in the commission of a felony can be seized, said Community Service Officer Mark Siegel. The department has a lot full of seized vehicles, most of which aren't worth much and are sold at auction, he said.

"It's very safe to say that this is the only seized Viper out there that's a D.A.R.E. car," Siegel said. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime car."

The department's previous D.A.R.E. car was a 1986 Pontiac Firebird seized in 1989. About seven years ago, it was one of six in the nation chosen to be made into Matchbox cars, Siegel said.

"We held onto that one longer than we should have" because of the Matchbox toy, he said, adding that by the end of its run with the department the car was barely driveable.

"Nobody wanted to drive it," he said. "Now I've got to beat them off with a stick."

Marzetta drove the car -- a sleek, 450-horsepower billboard for the police department -- for the first time Thursday.

As he pulled out of the lot, he paused to rev the engine several times.

"No!" Siegel yelled after him. "Remember what you're driving!"

[Linda Z]

I'm all in favor of the sanctity of private property and all that, but my knee-jerk reaction is that anyone who puts people at risk by driving 127 mph in a 35-mph zone deserves to lose his car.

[RottieGrrrl]

I'm all in favor of the sanctity of private property and all that, but my knee-jerk reaction is that anyone who puts people at risk by driving 127 mph in a 35-mph zone deserves to lose his car.

No. He deserves to have his license suspended. This is theft, and this is ungodly. These laws were put into effect originally to take away property that people bought with illegal gains. This is a total abuse of the law.

We are ALL in danger. If you don't think this can happen to you, think again. It can.

[Nottawayfer]

I believe that anything 20 miles over the speed limit is a felony. That is the reason the cars are confiscated. I don't think it's theft at all. What if someone was killed by this guy blasting through the streets like that? Lives can't be replaced. I have an ex boss who served one year in prison for killing a man with his car. He had just gotten a new Ferrari and wanted to show it off to a friend. He bitched and complained about paying restitution to the widow and her 5-year-old daughter. He got out of jail, bought a new Ferrari, and is still bitching. Meantime, this lady still doesn't have her husband, her her daughter doesn't have a daddy. Speeding is dangerous!!!

Edited June 21, 2007 by Nottawayfer

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I've seen this many times...the arrest of an individual often results in the seizing of their vehicle...this is pure bullsh *t...

it's legal theft as far as I'm concerned...Rottiegrrrl is right...they are abusing what this was origally designed for...some guy has a pound of weed in his trunk and suddenly the local police own his car...that's not right...say what you will...it's not fair in most cases.

[Linda Z]

I have no doubt that Big Brother can level many injustices against the good citizens of our country. I simply don't think this particular case is one of those times. At 127 mph, that car was a lethal weapon and I'm glad the felon who was driving it can't anymore.

I don't want to argue with ya, Rottie. I simply disagree with you on this one.

Groucho, this wasn't a guy with a pound of pot in his trunk. This was an idiot who put everyone's lives around him at risk because he clearly didn't give a damn about anyone (including his own sorry a$$, apparently). Too bad, so sad, he's been had.

My cousin's granddaughter just underwent her umpteenth plastic surgery to reconstruct her eye and eye socket after being hit by a similar jacka$$ almost 10 years ago. It's been hell for that little girl. People who commit crimes against others with their vehicles by their incredible recklessness should be prosecuted just as rigorously as those who stick a gun in someone's face, if you ask me.

[dmiller]

Edited June 22, 2007 by dmiller

[dmiller]

Looks like they didn't get it for *free* though.

Too close to home wrote:

Well all the residents of Plainfield will be happy to know that they own a piece of that Viper... the village had to pay 30,000 to the finance company to get the car, because thats what the defendant owed on it. Now lets not forget about the paint job... oh and the mainetnance... I bet people dont realize that a simple tune up on a viper is about 2,000.00 The bank that financed the car for the defendant was in court to state the amount owed so they could be sure to get their money.... interesting huh? Wonder when we all get to take our turns driving it?

I understand the village paid "over $30,000" just to pay off the note. At cruise night police were bragging that it only cost the village $900. They aught to get thier story straight.

A tune up for a Viper does not cost $2,000. That said, it sickens me they got this car. I understand seizing a vehicle if it was bought with drug money, or any money gained through illegal activities. But the fact that this owner had a clean record, no criminal problems and STILL gets his car taken away is just wrong.

(from THIS SITE

[coolchef]

you break the law you lose sorry

over 100mph in a slow zone?

go to jail do not pass go

[GrouchoMarxJr]

David...I must disagree with you...there is a penalty for speeding...it shouldn't include taking the guys car away from him...he didn't hit any young girl or anyone else...pay the fine...that's equitable...but to seize people's property arbitrarily?...for driving too fast you lose your car?

I think it violates our constitution.

[doojable]

My legal sources say that the city in question will have a problem making this stick....

[dmiller]

David...I must disagree with you...there is a penalty for speeding...it shouldn't include taking the guys car away from him...he didn't hit any young girl or anyone else...pay the fine...that's equitable...but to seize people's property arbitrarily?...for driving too fast you lose your car?

I think it violates our constitution.

Hiya Groucho! :) So far -- I haven't said ANYTHING about my opinion on this.

The above was a quote from some blog that I found when I googled the story.

I think I gave the link to the site, just below the quote.

Cars like that are made for speed, but I agree -- NOT IN TOWNS OR NEIGHBORHOODS!

Take it out on the open road, or something, if you want to do 127 mph.

He definitely should have a punishment like -- ohhhh - sayyyy-- a 5 year driver's license suspension,

but allowed to drive back and forth to work in the meantime --- in a Yugo!

By the way, regardless of my opinion on this,

this story did pique my interest about the confiscation issue.

Conservation police do this all the time to hunters,

that they had *caught* in some violation or other.

Guns, vehicles, personal property can be *confiscated* for minor infractions.

I need to read up more about the subject,

but this story seems to take it to another level entirely.

EFS (Edited For Spelling).

Edited June 22, 2007 by dmiller

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I agree

[ChasUFarley]

This guy had numerous charges against him...

How much longer should he be allowed on the road? Until he kills someone?

Because then it would be a case of "oh, why didn't those liberal judges stop him earlier?!"

What if he was using something else, say a gun, to break the law? Then what? Let him keep it?

Heck NO!

The guy is a total moron for driving like that - driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right.

Take away his toy, take away his keys, and lock his @$$ up!!!

BTW - We have 2 cars that were built for speed - one is a Porsche. We don't drive like that - we belong to a club where we can go to a race track to drive like that, when we want to. It's much safer and more fun because there's no fear of doing something we shouldn't be doing or getting caught....

Edited June 22, 2007 by ChasUFarley

[doojable]

Generally, as I understand it - he could be locked up for a long time...but the car is property. The car didn't "have a say in the matter"

Ultimately, the law most likely doesn't allow for the conviscation of property in a case like this. I'll do more research though....

[GrouchoMarxJr]

This guy had numerous charges against him...

How much longer should he be allowed on the road? Until he kills someone?

Because then it would be a case of "oh, why didn't those liberal judges stop him earlier?!"

What if he was using something else, say a gun, to break the law? Then what? Let him keep it?

Heck NO!

The guy is a total moron for driving like that - driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right.

Take away his toy, take away his keys, and lock his @$$ up!!!

Allright Chas...calm down... :)...You're much to sweet to be so hostile! I agree...take away his keys...suspend his license...but it's not right to seize his car!...he presented himself as a severe POTENTIAL danger...but nobody got hurt...we should not take his car away from him...it belongs to him...it's his property! keep him off the road...fine...but let's not start taking property from people...it's a slippery slope.

[rhino]

"Wreckless" endangerment comes to mind ...

But it brings to mind a murder charge ... when someone fires a gun at someone, but misses, how much different is that from the guy that happens to hit and commit murder? If proof could be absolute, why not give the guy that happened to miss the chair? It might save an innocent life or five.

As a felony it seems property can be forfeited ... in this case it seems just to me ... but I'd rather see them sell the car I think.

Edited June 22, 2007 by rhino

[GarthP2000]

Heh! Gotta love the ad at the bottom for Careers in Law Enforcement/Policing (from Kaplan U.)

Be willing to bet that one of favorite courses is "High Speed Chases: Techniques and Tricks!" featuring that car. Videos supplied by World's Fastest Police Chases TV series from CourtTV. :D

But seriously, I kinda side with Linda and Notawayfer on this one. Speed kills, and I'm not talking about the drug. There is no comparison between getting caught with a reefer in the glove compartment, ... and speeding down the highway at 127 mph, endangering anyone unfortunate to accidently get in his way.

!...he presented himself as a severe POTENTIAL danger...but nobody got hurt...

I just LOVE 'reasoning' like that! 'POTENTIAL' danger, nobody gets hurt. So why the big deal. . . . . . until someone gets killed!

A little too late to go 'Oops!' then.

<_<

Edited June 22, 2007 by GarthP2000

[ChasUFarley]

Allright Chas...calm down... :)...You're much to sweet to be so hostile! I agree...take away his keys...suspend his license...but it's not right to seize his car!...he presented himself as a severe POTENTIAL danger...but nobody got hurt...we should not take his car away from him...it belongs to him...it's his property! keep him off the road...fine...but let's not start taking property from people...it's a slippery slope.

I guess it bothers me because I was hit by a car when I was a kid - I was 5 years old.

I was with an adult and in a crosswalk. The other cars had stopped to let us cross. I was vertically challenged at 5 years old. The woman who hit me never saw me - she tried to creep thru the crosswalk and then gunned it. I was thrown about 50 yards but because it was early spring and I happened to be wearing a very thick down jacket, I was only badly bruised (couldn't walk for a few days because my right hip was so bruised that blood came out through the skin - no cut - just pushed thru. But I couldn't imagine what a break would have been like... My left knee, which I landed on and skidded on, still has problems to this day. The woman who hit me was devistated - she just didn't see me. She wasn't speeding or anything - but was admittedly impatient. That was a small error, really. What if she had been knowingly and purposefully breaking the law? What then?

This guy will kill someone if he continues on like this - and it wouldn't matter if he was driving a Viper or a VW Bug - speed kills - but by him misusing his Viper like he does, I have no sympathy for him at all. He doesn't deserve the car or the privilege of driving. This isn't a case of the guy just going 20 or 30 mph over the speedlimit - he was 100mph OVER - crazy! - That's a deadly weapon!!

p.s.

Incidentlly, my husband was also hit by a car when he was a kid - the driver was speeding. He was about 15 at the time. He broke his tibia, femer (in three places), and his humerus. He was thrown up over the car - he hit the car three times - and he's had many surgeries to pin the bones in his leg and have the pins removed. He was very, very lucky.

Edited June 22, 2007 by ChasUFarley

[Abigail]

Allright Chas...calm down... :)...You're much to sweet to be so hostile! I agree...take away his keys...suspend his license...but it's not right to seize his car!...he presented himself as a severe POTENTIAL danger...but nobody got hurt...we should not take his car away from him...it belongs to him...it's his property! keep him off the road...fine...but let's not start taking property from people...it's a slippery slope.

I think taking his car was a good start. Look, you can suspend his license, but it doesn't guarantee he won't get behind the wheel of that car and drive again. Drunk drivers do it all the time, WITH suspended licenses. BUT, if you take away his car, it is going to be a little more difficult for him to get behind the wheel of it again.

[rhino]

and speeding down the highway at 127 mph, endangering anyone unfortunate to accidently get in his way.

And not a highway ... think of a street with a 35 mph speed limit. Imagine crossing that street and seeing a car heading your way at 62 mph. Then try to imagine twice that speed. Even if it was fairly desolate, this seems really dangerous.

If the guy could afford a $65k car, a little fine would mean nothing. But the "fine" should match other similar crimes i guess. I don't see how the police get to claim the prize as their own toy.

[doojable]

If he can afford a $60,000 car he can buy another car...

[GarthP2000]

I think taking his car was a good start. Look, you can suspend his license, but it doesn't guarantee he won't get behind the wheel of that car and drive again. Drunk drivers do it all the time, WITH suspended licenses. BUT, if you take away his car, it is going to be a little more difficult for him to get behind the wheel of it again.

Bingo!!

[dmiller]

I think taking his car was a good start. Look, you can suspend his license, but it doesn't guarantee he won't get behind the wheel of that car and drive again. Drunk drivers do it all the time, WITH suspended licenses. BUT, if you take away his car, it is going to be a little more difficult for him to get behind the wheel of it again.

Abi -- you make a good point about the drunk drivers.

The only problem I see about that issue versus this one (and I'm NOT arguing with you) :)

is that the local police, courts, etc., (all over the country) DON'T enforce the DUI laws to the limit

(as well they should, especially since there are so many repeat offenders).

One of the things that irritates me about this is, this guy is getting FINALITY concerning his car,

and all the repeat DUI guys, are getting *AMBIGUOUS* sentences.

(Jails are too crowded these days -- let's let them out on their own recognizance)

Would that the cops, courts, etc., show this same FINALITY to the DUI crowd,

as they are showing to this other guy who also broke the law,

but had some eye candy mounted on 4 wheels while doing so.

Yes -- this man should go to jail.

Yes -- he should have driving privilidges revoked.

Yes -- he should receive a hefty fine.

(I once got a speeding ticket for 22 mph over the limit (on an interstate highway),

and that was a $285.00 fine I had to pay. Can't imagine what his might be.)

I dunno. Seems like a double standard going on here, but like I said --

I need to read up more on this confiscation thing.

(EFS)

Edited June 22, 2007 by dmiller

[TOMMYZ]

We're going to have some weird alliances on this one. I'm as law and order as the next guy but I don't agree with this. I also feel the guy should have his license suspended, pay a hefty fine and do community service in a hospital or physical rehab center where he can see the results of stupidity like his. ( and I can just imagine his insurance bill when he starts to drive again! ) However I can't help but wonder if the cops would have taken his car if it was a beater or "wowmobile.". There is also the fact that the guy is from Naperville. For you folks outside this area, that's a mostly upscale area. I can't help wonder if there was the thought "let's teach this rich punk a lesson." Again, throw the book at the guy but leave seizure of property to people who bought that property with money from crime.