With the new amendments to the Penal Code concerning transport offences, members of parliament have provided for the possibility of confiscating the vehicle of the guilty driver in certain cases. At the same time, the Ministry of Interior and the prosecution immediately and unlawfully began to apply these changes. Why illegally? Because the actual confiscation of a motor vehicle can only be ordered by a court and is carried out after a conviction for a crime for which such confiscation is provided for has entered into force.
In which cases is the revocation of a driver’s license for drugs and alcohol envisaged?
Several are the hypotheses, in the event of the occurrence of which the law provides for the confiscation of motor vehicles.
The first hypothesis covers a number of transport-related crimes committed through negligence. This hypothesis applies when one or more persons suffer serious or moderate bodily injury or death in the following cases:
1. when the driver was intoxicated or under the influence of narcotic substances or their analogues;
2. когато водачът без медицински причини откаже да бъде тестван за алкохол и/или наркотични вещества или техните аналози;
3. when the perpetrator has fled from the scene of the incident;
4. when the driver was not legally entitled to drive;
5. when the speed limit is exceeded by more than 50 km/h within a built-up area;
6. when the act was committed after passing a red traffic light signal;
7. when the act is committed on a pedestrian crosswalk.
Interesting! In the case of intentional causing death in a traffic – transport accident the law does not provide for proceeding to a14> confiscation of motor vehicles.
The second hypothesis concerns simple driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 1.2 per mille or after using drugs or their analogues without causing a traffic accident, respectively without there being any casualties.
Who can carry out the confiscation of motor vehicles for drugs and alcohol?
The revocation of a driving license is a measure that can only be imposed by a court and can only be enforced after a conviction has come into force, i.e. after the driver has been found guilty of committing one of the above crimes. Any other preliminary confiscation is contrary to the law and protection should be sought.
Protection in the event of unlawful confiscation of motor vehicles for drugs
It is common practice for the police to circumvent the law by persuading the driver to voluntarily surrender their vehicle with a voluntary surrender protocol. The most common argument in practice is that in this way the driver is cooperating, which will subsequently be interpreted in their favor. However, this statement is untrue. Whether the driver voluntarily surrendered their vehicle or not is irrelevant to the subsequent case against them. The only consequence that may arise from voluntary surrender is that the driver will not be able to get it back while the case is ongoing, and in cases where their field test sample is a false positive, they will not be able to seek compensation for the time they were without their own transport.
Therefore, a voluntary surrender protocol for the vehicle should not be signed under any circumstances, and under no circumstances should the driver agree to have their vehicle confiscated.
The second practical option for the police and the prosecution to circumvent the law is to seize the vehicle with a protocol as “material evidence.” In this case, the seizure must be carried out in the presence of witnesses and with prior court approval or subsequent approval.
In cases where a traffic accident has been caused, the vehicle is indeed material evidence and may be seized and detained for the purposes of a technical examination. Once this has been carried out, the vehicle should be released. This is done either on the initiative of the supervising prosecutor or at the request of the owner of the seized vehicle. In the latter case, if the prosecutor refuses, his refusal is subject to appeal.
In cases where the vehicle has been seized due to driving with a blood alcohol concentration above 1.2 per mille or after using narcotic substances or their analogues, the vehicle does not constitute material evidence. In this case, the seizure is completely unlawful. The defense is carried out by the owner requesting the prosecutor to return the vehicle, and if the prosecutor refuses, the refusal is subject to appeal.
In all cases of unlawful seizure of a motor vehicle, the owner is entitled to compensation for all damages suffered, including non-pecuniary damages resulting from being left without personal transportation, as well as pecuniary damages, including lease payments, any repairs that may have been necessary due to improper storage of the vehicle, and many others. The specific damages, as well as the specific amounts due as compensation, are assessed for each specific case after a detailed review of the facts and evidence in the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Silvia Petkova Sole Proprietorship Law Firm is a specialized criminal law firm with established and experienced criminal lawyers.
Legal consultations by telephone or on site at the office are provided only with a previously scheduled appointment.
Contact:
Working hours: Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Address: Sofia, 2 Tri Ushi Str., 3rd floor
Tel. 0885 47 77 57
Email: office@petkovalegal.com
OR