TAKING VEHICLES, VIOLATING RIGHTS

We, the People, don't need a Breathalyzer to know when a politician is
drunk with power. But being a democracy, we don't seize his office until
the next election or term limits restore his sobriety.

Rudy Giuliani has empowered every cop in New York to seize any car whose
driver he or the Breathalyzer decides is guilty of drunken driving. This is
known as "Alley Court" where the cop is judge, jury and executioner.

First they hang you, then you get the trial. 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.

What makes this even crazier under due process is Rudy's decision that if
the kid is found innocent of drunken driving in Criminal Court, his daddy
still has to fight for the car in Civil Court. "It will be up to the owner
of the car to show that he didn't know the driver was a drunk," the mayor
says.

How can a man found innocent of drunken driving still have to prove his
sobriety in Civil Court? Rudy answers: "O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a
criminal court jury but found guilty in the civil trial."

Who's drunk now? Do we really have to hear this stuff from the mayor of New
York? O.J. Simpson. Right! Where's Don Imus, now that we need him?

This is all about the presumption of innocence, which Rudy turns on its
head. In 1895, the Supreme Court, tracing the venerable history of the
presumption from Deuteronomy through U.S. common law, wrote: "The principle
that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the
undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the
foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

Against this history, Rudy invokes an administrative code passed during
Prohibition by the City Council. This old baby, never thought to be used
against alleged drunk drivers, let the cops grab cars that were used to
convey everything from booze to burglar tools to -- get this! -- "articles
of medicines for the purpose of procuring abortion or prevention of
conception."

Hillary Clinton would surely be with Rudy on the liquor, but we might have
an issue here on condoms and abortions.

What worries prosecutors is the corruption that looks ripe under Rudy's
law. If a cop can take your car, what's it worth to you? This isn't a $20
deal, this is maybe a $30,000 vehicle, plus the possible loss of a job. How
much do we want to test our police on honesty?

And, of course, there is the question of racism. The people most likely to
lose cars are minorities. And when a cop testifies against blacks or
Hispanics, who is a Criminal Court judge likely to believe?

I asked the corporation counsel's office about this. I said: "In view of
the history of judges' going with cops on 99% of search-and-seizure cases
when they know better, what chance does a minority man or woman have when
the cops say he was drunk?"

The corporation counsel spokeswoman answered: "In law school, we called
that the 'parade of the horribles.' This is not about to happen in New
York. And remember -- nobody should drive drunk."

The parade of the horribles lies at the base of Rudy's law -- it assumes
guilt against those who haven't harmed anybody. But of course, it rides in
on preventive medicine.

If fascism arrives in America, it will be dressed in a white coat with a
stethoscope on its arm. Or a Breathalyzer.