The Everett Herald reports on an effort by state Rep. John Lovick to set higher penalties for car thieves:
Auto thieves would be locked up longer and people caught with the illicit tools of the trade would be punished, under a bill gaining traction among lawmakers.The bill also could prompt a new program in which car owners allow authorities to stop their vehicle late at night simply to ensure the rightful owner is behind the wheel.
Sounds good.
This is an issue that has received some notable local attention in the past. Note the escalation of vehicle theft crimes at the table here as other crime categories have plateaued or receded. It's high time the Legislature actually addressed this issue with the stiffer consequences the public would like to see for this crime.
****
Footnote: Lovick is widely expected to run for Snohomish County Sheriff later this year since current Sheriff Rick Bart is term-limited.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 02, 2007 08:25 AM | Email ThisCar theft seems to be a cakewalk these days. If jail is a deterrent, then more jail time should be given to thieves.
Posted by: swatter on January 2, 2007 08:55 AMSounds to me like they're chipping away again at what little is left of "probable cause" as a protection against the police state. Always "for the greater good," of course...
Posted by: Patrick on January 2, 2007 09:07 AMTougher penalties for car theft are long overdue, and any reasonable tool the police can use makes sense. However, my car going down the road at 3AM does not consitutue probable cause to be pulled over. That isn't a tool for the police, it is a liscense for them to do whatever they want. In short, it means we would need permission to drive on our own roads. No thank you.
Posted by: Diogenes on January 2, 2007 09:10 AMSo let me guess, if you do not give them permission to stop your car late at night simply to ensure the rightful owner is behind the wheel they will say something in the effect of we cannot help you when your car gets stolen, becuase you did not give us permission. Besides how is this little add-on going to do anything. The police have already said they can't charge someone with cartheft for just driving your car without your permission they can only charge them with possession of your property without your permission which is why so many car thieves get off with light sentences in the first place.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 2, 2007 09:22 AMSteal a $10,000 item of jewelry - go to jail.
Shoplift a $40 pair of jeans - go to jail.
Steal a $25,000 car 5 times and get let off.
As for the pulling over without probable cause - that's overkill. Prosecute, with vigor, the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time car thieves and the need to pull over a car without cause will not even be close to being necessary.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 2, 2007 09:33 AMAs to car theft, If caught more than two or three times I suggest penalties ala' India. It would be awefully hard to continue stealing vehicles if you had no hands!
Posted by: digitalfotographer on January 2, 2007 09:52 AMMore importantly what is the importance of a car in peoples lives?
If you are a single vehicle owner dependent upon your car to keep your job. The value of that vehicle is far more than the market value of car.
Even for those who are better off, with a home and two cars, losing a car can be a major pain. My van was in the shop and the logistics of getting kids to the daycare, both of us to our jobs and getting the errands done was a major headache.
Bottom line there is far more at stake than the insurance deductible in replacing a car. For many people livelihood is at stake.
There was a reason a century ago horse thieves were hung. The impact of stealing a horse went far beyond the horse. A family could starve without the horse, with out the means to plow, plant and harvest a families existence was at stake.
Until elected officials make auto theft prosecutions and sentences actually in line with the magnitude of the crime nothing much will change.
1st -- Rewrite the law so the driver of the stolen vehicle is arrested for auto theft, no more possession of stolen property. Being behind the wheel constitutes auto theft, no more needing to prove the drive is the one who actually "took" the car. Occupants in a stolen vehicle should be accessories to auto theft.
2nd -- Auto theft and accessory to auto theft should be a Class A Felony.
3rd -- Hard jail time, County jails no State correction facilities.
4th -- 3 strikes and life.
The current car theft laws are successfully weaseled around by people who can say "Joe lent it to me" with a straight face. Or "I was joyriding, I didn't _intend_ to keep it." It sounds daft, but the 'mere fact' of possession of the darn car doesn't lead to a slam dunk case... and thus GTA is often not vigorously pursued.
Posted by: Al on January 2, 2007 09:59 AMIt moves "possession of a stolen motor vehicle" from 'possession 2nd degree' to 'possession of stolen property in the 1st degree'.
All through the bill, priors for Possession1 count the same as GTA, so the bill does seem to toughen things quite a bit. I'm not sure what the penalties are for Possession1, but it _is_ on there for causing the career guys problems.
Posted by: Al on January 2, 2007 10:14 AMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1001.pdf
First of all, it doesn't say anything that I could find about permission to pull people over. I could have missed it, but I read it pretty carefully. Second, this looks like an excellent bill except for the bit where a new bureacracy is established to "explore ways to reduce auto theft". Why can't they just get together some sheriffs and police chiefs for afternoon coffee and ask them? Other than that, I fully support this bill.
Posted by: Calvin A on January 2, 2007 10:15 AM(Of course, it won't help a 96 Honda Civic owner like me, but still....)
Posted by: Easycure on January 2, 2007 10:16 AMWe need to bring back caning for the first offense.
There won't be many repeat offenders.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on January 2, 2007 10:27 AMFunny how in this state there always seems to be a financial add-on. Lovick proposes a $1 surcharge on auto insurance policies to "unite police, prosecutors and residents to raise money for fighting auto theft through law enforcement and public education efforts." If money really is needed for uniting, fighting and education then raise it by adding that cost on to all motor vehicle citations - parking tickets and moving violations alike.
If the $1 proposal flies then once again people who do the right thing, such as buying insurance, are penalized. Even if it's just a $1 why make responsible people pay for the irresponsible?
Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 2, 2007 10:42 AMI once worked with an urban illuminati who living in Seattle. Upon hearing my Jeep GC was stolen from my garage responded with- "come-on it's a right of passage to take a joy ride in a borrowed car, who hasn't done that?"
People in this region are quick to cry out in fear of the potential for gov't abuse of power, but in doing so diminish the rights of the general law abiding citzens to own and protect personal property.
It's the case in so many areas: The law requiring auto insuranceto drive a car. The law requiring breath testing interlock devices for DUI drivers. The law requiring ex-cons to maintain contact with state agencies and meet conditions of release. The laws requiring sex offenders to register and re-register after moving.
These are just a few of the laws once written to protect and secure the well-being the general public, that are often ignored or brushed aside in the effort to be fair and tolerant. For one, I'd risk the off chance of being stopped at 3am in exchange for gov't effort to protect it's citizens and their property.
Posted by: Cardio Guy on January 2, 2007 11:11 AM1. They agree with the restriction that the law represents.
2. They are deterred by the consequences the law provides.
In the case of auto theft it has become so common as to be regarded as routine. A thief won't care about reason one, and if we let them go then reason 2 is just swamp gas.
This is unacceptable to me and I can't think of a reason not to increase the penalties to bring them in line with those for similar crimes against other types of property.
Likewise I have no problem with the police allowing someone to request that they stop their car and check on the situation if it is seen roaming around after hours. I will not be using this service but I might use it when my daughter hits 16.