the right to own and possess property is part of the foundation of the anglo american legal system indeed the fifth amendment provides that no person shall be denied life liberty or property without due process of law case address most if not maybe even all of the if she presented by dismiss all the facts in this case are different from that  and robbins mr richardson being is next door neighbor it was for a short period of time this brings us back to those same mitigating circumstances history said met the requirements necessary to get his license back in illinois and in georgia he was not intoxicated at the time of the staff he did not commit any actually driving violation all on a that is true however the statute does give discretion to the state not to the port so you consider the circumstance than which the car does not have to be forfeit it's not a requirement that the  with your suggestion with your contention that just because the statute invest invest in the state's attorney some sort of prosecutorial discretion which it clearly doesn't make that the trial court has necessarily required to consider certain sets of circumstances in mitigation had how do you make that that leap between arguing on the one hand th of the traffic court has not discretionary duties in terms of consideration of certain mitigating factors i got a problem with the help me yeah well our contention is that the court the things that we should consider either value of the vehicle the nature of the item which is in this case a car and a car being a necessity of life where mr rhys lives in robbins but is not able to go to work to take his children to school to go even to medical appointments or even to buy groceries without this transportation and can and also  is still to be considered and the fate the fact that this is trying to be a remedy for this if it public interest doesn't remove this from the ambit of the amendment final analysis that is left to the general assembly where the general assembly seeks a result that becomes absurd because of the application the court should step in and see is saying that because he then this individual instance that he had rehabilitated himself that the general simply this policy of those who have been convicted not allowing them to try that somehow that makes it ridiculous and if he had rebuilt rehabilitated himself some them why had he not gotten his license restored tak because in this situation he was to get his license back the next month he was scheduled for a hearing to get his license in june of two thousand and eight it was stopped on may twenty second if he got a due to the stop that was pushed out until december of zero eight and he did receive his license back then he was merely waiting for the hearing so he had done everything to get his license back but he had to wait for that procedural step of the hear and she would take b s and stop the day before if you're correct correct to to keep them here drivers off the road there are threats to the safety of the public and taking their cars certainly has served to deter them from from doing that kind of thing somebody come from someplace to come get you to take you back rather taking a can and the i think the testimony was that he got the call about two o'clock or something to or maybe i took off at three ten they're still he perhaps mention these factors knowing that he's not required to make this assessment and use this in his opinion but did not form the basis of his opinion by those mitigating circumstances he mentioned them and as you say dismissed his testimony as not credible however he did have a witness who testified about the the emergency and they trusted excessive fine in the case of people let's roll waller versus nine hundred eighty nine forward truck so can you tell us why you believe that these factors that he was doing with the vehicle was not something serious in the sense of intentionally seeking to commit harm to the public he was seeking to help me with it were those factor well i will not argue against the second factor whether the property was an interval part of the question of the crime but third prong about the extent of the of the of the offense in this situation it was less than one hour that he was in his car it was to go to a special school in the forest return through midlothian back to rob and that was a short fare they never discussed the mileage but it was it's undeniably a severe penalty to take the car in order to prevent the presence of in fact a motorist in this situation we do not have an intoxicated motorist we still have someone preparing for the oral argument and i was reading the brief i noticed several errors and i apologize for sending in a professional product to the courts it was my responsibility and i did not feel that three having said that ever any fifth the many claims ever raised before this court in the reason why of course is that forfeiture statutes have long to recognize as being constitutional on the fifth amendment and the appropriate analysis but that's not before th give me a break please give me a break that's exactly what the claim is asking this court to do s in this court to ignore the law and give him a break now so i should give him a break why shouldn't the was not fully rehabilitated the spite what his assertions might be now yes the state of georgia apparently has some of that he says that all the requirements yes the inpatient drug and alcohol concerns were yes of course he was not drunk while he was driving the scenario and there's no evidence of any sort that he was drinking and driving any point other than the prior conviction but that's not the purpose of this law this purpose of this law is to deter convicted drunk would clearly contraband any other legal claims and the ability to see forfeiture in this case that would now be a crime in that scenario is a necessity overrides the  other reason no other basis to countermand there's no mitigating factors that one being considered there is no evidence that was an offer that would demonstrate the trial court erred in any way in the proper standard at this point it's not even simply a the mitigating factors so we did consider them we just didn't consider them significant the trial court considered them he didn't consider them significant and now this point he's asking this court to declare as a matter of law that he's entitled to a rule of wanted that he's entitled to not have c so the question is then why is that now how gross grossly disproportionate to this proportionate charge in violation of the eighth compares the gravity of the of facts and that's the ability of the planes or the ability of the property owner to afford as this court has recognized the offense here is of extreme serious importance because involves an unlicensed driver someone whose license was removed because he was driving drunk and was convicted of driving drunk and unless the driver driving on the streets there is a very dangerous scenario thankfully nothing happened in this case there's no indication to think that anyone was put in danger in this case but as a general matter the deterrence it's necessary for this crime to significantly our legislature has properly determined that drunk drivers should not drive at all that they have to rehabilitate themselves completely before going to title to have the he was picked up at his school two o'clock it was only a ten minute ride or a fifteen minute ride to his mother's house and yet they were found in midlothian an hour and ten minutes later is a trial court ordered where i would lay still driving at that point so it's not simply a short little quick trip for purposes of taking some of the sea sick mother this appears to be a person who was riding extensively for at least an hour or an hour and a half at a time when he was not authorized to drive at all i think the mother is there for for an emergency it it sounds far too strange to be credible and i believe that's why the trial court will the way he did and for that reason in this case the forfeiture of was proper there is no statute is to deter repeat offenders in this instance we have evidence that mr aris is not a repeat offender and the state also mentioned that there's always room for necessity but here there was no true necessity necessity overrides the crime in this situation we earth's standing on the fact that there was a necessity that did override any crime in th situation because of the fact that his neighbor who did testify that he was not in the state to drive and he would not have been one of the other drivers possible in this situation that mr rhys was driving out of necessity