Petitioner, the Police Department brought about a proceeding to determine its right to retain a vehicle seized when a man was caught drinking and driving, with a breath test that was more than twice the legal limit. Respondent was also responsible for damaging three vehicles on the night of his arrest.
Respondent argued that although he admittedly was under the influence, Petitioner failed to comply with the Krimstock Order, which are rules required to be followed during the seizure of a person’s vehicle. As stated in the Krimstock Order, the Department must provide notice of the right to a retention hearing in two distinct ways:
Notice of the right to a hearing will be provided at the time of seizure by attaching to the [Property Clerk’s] voucher already provided to the person from whom a vehicle is seized a notice, in English and Spanish, as set forth below. A copy of which notice will also be sent by mail to the registered and/or titled owner of vehicle within five business days after the seizure.
Respondent testified that the police did not give him any paperwork after he was arrested and the Department had no proof of notice of Peake having been served at the time of the seizure. As for the second required type of notice, by mail within five business days of the seizure, the Department submitted a copy that was past 10 business days from the seizure and what NYPD sent was not clearly legible, with an initial by a person that no one seemed to know.
The Petitioner’s claim was granted due to the Police Departments failure to comply with the dual notice requirement of the Krimstock Order, the vehicle had to be released to Respondent.
To read more about this case click here.
To read more stories like this click here and visit my website.
