The 32-16 vote Tuesday by the House sent the bill to the Senate.

Sponsored by Rep. Judy Uherbelau, D-Ashland, House Bill 3304 has become more complicated than first envisioned by Angela Barber Austbo, who has sought vehicle forfeitures by repeat drunken drivers since she was broadsided in 1992.

As a House committee revised it, the bill allows cars of some drunken drivers to be classified as nuisances, subject to forfeiture under a civil proceeding that requires less stringent proof than in criminal proceedings.

The bill could be characterized as "two strikes and you could lose your wheels."

For their cars to be subject to forfeiture, drivers must fall into one of four categories when they are arrested for drunken driving:

Participated in alcohol-diversion programs within the past 10 years.

Convicted of drunken driving -- or murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or assault resulting from driving -- within the past 10 years.

Facing pending drunken-driving charges.

Facing other criminal charges, such as murder, resulting from a vehicle-related death or injury.

When a drunken driver broadsided Angela Barber in 1992, his license was suspended because he was a habitual traffic offender. He had several previous convictions for drunken driving, and his blood alcohol content the night of the collision was almost three times the legal limit. He was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to assault, drunken driving and a firearms violation.

Uherbelau said Barber, who has since married, has had a tougher time.

"She has had about six years of rehabilitation, she has severe neurological damage and she has had a long road to come back," Uherbelau said.

Barber has made several appearances in three sessions before legislative committees.

Rep. Bill Witt, R-Portland, opposed the bill as too strong.

"Civil forfeiture should not be taken lightly," he said. "When we take people's property that could be worth a significant amount of money or could be critical in terms of their employment and livelihood, we should not do it lightly."

The 1997 Legislature approved a weaker version that lets police with "reasonable grounds" impound vehicles of people arrested for drunken driving, driving while their licenses were suspended or revoked and committing another crime, or driving without a license.

Though he was a co-sponsor of Uherbelau's original bill, Rep. Rob Patridge, R-Medford, said House Bill 3304 was unnecessary.

"Adequate statutes are on the books to let cities and counties be able to forfeit these vehicles when they believe they are a problem," said Patridge, a former Jackson County deputy district attorney.

But Uherbelau said the bill is needed because some local governments doubted their authority under the 1997 law.

Uherbelau's bill would let police release impounded cars of repeat drunken drivers, instead of confiscating them, if defendants agree to specific conditions. But their vehicles would be subject to forfeiture if defendants are arrested again on drunken-driving charges.