Continuing to espouse and defend a zero-tolerance stance on DWI offenders, Nassau County officials are claiming significant reductions in alcohol-related accidents since Feb. 23, when it became county policy to seize cars from drivers who are allegedly under the influence.

But as the impounded cars continue to multiply in the stockpiles of designated county lots, so does tension between Nassau officials and civil rights advocates, the latter of whom are calling the county's policy nothing short of unconstitutional. This kind of pressure, and complaints that too many innocent people were losing their only means of transportation, recently forced the county to slightly alter its stance.

On March 11, County Executive Thomas Gulotta announced at a press conference that if police determine that impoundment will result in a family's hardship, they can allow the owner of the vehicle whose car was driven by an allegedly intoxicated individual to keep the vehicle, as long as it is hooked up to an ingenious machine designed to prevent an intoxicated person from driving it.

But even this more lenient policy may lead to additional questions, such as what definitively constitutes a hardship and how police can fairly judge what defines a hardship, with no designated set of specific circumstances.

On Tuesday, March 16, the Nassau County Police Department made available its latest, updated list of confiscated vehicles. According to the report, a total of 116 cars have been seized by the county police between February 23 and March 16.

It's this kind of action by the police that, according to Nassau County Press Secretary Dave Vieser, a spokesperson for Gulotta, has led to a dramatic plummet in DWI incidents, about 51 percent, albeit during a considerably small time sample. If over the long haul these numbers remain accurate and consistent, it would then appear that the threat of losing one's car is a greater deterrent to drinking and driving than the risk of losing one's license, getting fined or even possibly going to jail.

Nassau's car seizure policy is very much like that of New York City's, which Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also enacted earlier this year. Suffolk County bears a similar law, with one significant difference. Police will only seize cars on the spot from repeat offenders - those who have already been convicted at least once of DWI.

The New York State region and Nassau County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union have what Nassau County ACLU Executive Director Barbara Bernstein said are two major objections regarding the zero-tolerance policy of Nassau and New York City. The ACLU raised these two objections because its representatives believe both are flagrant offenses against the United States Constitution.

The State ACLU, in fact, has filed a civil lawsuit against New York City on behalf of the first man to lose his car, Pavel Grinberg of Staten Island, a first-time offender who, according to Bernstein, was stopped in Kings County where he was measured to have an alcohol level of .1.

The first objection, said Bernstein, is that Nassau's policy "removes the presumption of innocence, and requires judgment on the spot...without any kind of due process." Any car owner who might actually be innocent cannot get his or her wheels back until a court absolves them of the crime.

However, this scenario is probably unlikely because most tests that determine intoxication are accurate, according to Long Island MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) Chapter Vice President Marge Lee. "Our cops in Nassau and Suffolk County are very well trained in performing the standard field sobriety test," said Lee.

Lee said that confiscating cars before conviction is an appropriate measure, drawing a natural analogy. "If I used a licensed gun in the commission of an armed robbery, they're not going to return the gun to me before adjudication."

The second flaw in the law, according to the ACLU, is that it mandates "excessive punishment [which does not distinguish] between a first-time offender and someone who's been arrested five or six times," said Bernstein.

The New York State Legislature does not prescribe asset forfeiture for any misdemeanor crime, said Bernstein. Because a first-time DWI offense is considered a misdemeanor, and not a felony, the ACLU believes that Nassau and New York City have exceeded their authority. Bernstein said that Suffolk's car seizure law is preferable because punishment is reserved for multiple offenders who have proven that they are dangerous.

But Vieser said Suffolk's policy is less potent because "It removes the deterrent from someone who hasn't had a DWI arrest before. It only takes one time to cause terrible injury or death," said Vieser.

Another problem the county has encountered is that completely innocent people are losing their vehicles because someone else was stopped for DWI, while using their car.

Facing complaints that the zero-tolerance policy was too harsh, the county tagged on an amendment to the original law on March 11, giving certain car owners an ultimatum. They now may be able to get their vehicles back if they have an ignition Interlock Device installed. Drivers must exhale into these clever devices, which act like breathalyzers because they measure intoxication through one's breath. If one's alcohol level is measured about .025%, well below the legal standard, the car will not start.

"If families can prove that by losing their car, they would get fired from their job, or lose their livelihood, they can get the car back if they install this device in the vehicle," said Vieser. Installation of the device is at the cost of the vehicle owner.

Drinkers who think they can beat the system by having a friend blow into the machine for them are foolishly mistaken. The device is programmed to shut down the car every 15 minutes or so unless the driver blows into it again. "If he doesn't, the horn starts honking and the lights start flashing," said "And then you're really going to be in real trouble if we catch you," warned Vieser.

These devices can also be programmed so that the car can only be started during a person's stated working hours, or other times when use of the car is considered essential for survival.

Since this option has been employed, 34 confiscated autos have been released to their owners, and 59 hardship cases are up for review.

Though the ACLU is known to make hard-line stances on preserving all rights, Bernstein said that the interlock device might be a solution because at least people would have the chance at getting their cars back.

But even this revised system is imperfect, added Bernstein. "We would like to see to it that all families get the choice of installing this device and getting their cars back."

Just who and how one determines a hardship is a sticking point as well. Certainly judges cannot be troubled with more responsibility, as the court system is already clogged. Therefore, it is left up to the judgment of the police. However, the county has not provided them with specific guidelines to determine a hardship case.

"For the most part, it's a common sense call...and each case will be handled individually," said Detective Tom Mazur of the Nassau County Police.

According to Mazur, the process to require a relinquished car is difficult, placing the onus on the owner to do most of the work to get it back. After a car is initially seized, explained Mazur, an officer from the county's Asset Forfeiture Squad will call its owner and explain under what circumstances the vehicle may be returned. Then, the owner must contact the police department and prove his or her case.

"We're not going to go out of our way to give these guys their cars back," said Mazur. Though he emphasized that every case is different, Mazur said that one example of a circumstance that would most likely be considered a hardship is when someone requires the vehicle to go to work.

Vieser admitted that there might be a number of hardships in Nassau County because it contains a high population of car commuters. "It's especially important in this area. This is a particular area where citizens are dependent on automobiles," said Vieser.

In a time when the car plays such a vital role in mankind's daily life, it may seem harsh to take away one's means of transportation. But those supporting the law continue to try to remind opponents that the true victims of DWI cases are innocent victims whose lives are terribly altered because of someone's reckless judgment.

"The thrust of this law is to stop drunk drivers from killing or injuring innocent people," asserted Vieser.

"Drunk drivers must be removed from the road," said Gulotta at his press conference. "If they cannot be removed, the instrument of the commission of the crime will be."

"We definitely support the confiscation law," said Lee. "When an individual drives drunk, they are not concerned with anyone else's civil rights."