IT'S A CASE OF GOING TOO FAR

The issue: New York has tough drunken driving law Our view: It may
encroach on civil liberties

New York City has stirred debate across the country with the harshest
law anywhere against drunken driving.

The measure strikes us as too strict, if not illegal. We also think,
however, cities everywhere should confront an issue that plagues
communities as small as those on the Central Coast and as large as New
York or Los Angeles.

New York now can confiscate the vehicle of any motorist arrested as a
drunken driver. The key word is "arrested," not convicted.

As much as we favor harsh penalties for DWIs, it's hard for us to
imagine the courts upholding a law that says, in effect, you're
punished without due process.

We have no sympathy for drunken drivers, especially those who are
arrested time and again. Nationally, 16,000 people are killed every
year by tipsy motorists, but we're well beyond the point where sta-
tistics should have to be cited as an argument to punish offenders.

Statistics don't save lives. Nor, we regret to say, do long-running,
graphic educational campaigns against DWI. Nor do tough penalties.
Nor, worst of all, does tragedy that's inflicted on innocent victims.

It's understandable, then, why New York - where 6,368 DWI arrests were
made last year - has decided to go to the next level of penalty.

One can hardly quarrel with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani when he
says: "Whatever side of this debate you are on, there is a very simple
way to stay out of this problem. Do not drink and get behind the wheel
of a car. Just do not do it."

As expected, the American Civil Liberties Union was quick to register
opposition to the law, calling it excessive and un-
constitutional.

Until the courts act, New York police will make arrest and seize
vehicles, in the hope the measure will cut down on the number of DWI
cases.

It's a noble experiment, but also a daring one in terms of civil
liberties.