On a conviction for a second or subsequent offense of failure to maintain financial responsibility, the court is required to order the impoundment of the vehicle.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Impoundment only if the vehicle owner's consent
• D. Impoundment is optional depending on court

Answer: (A)

A key idea here is that penalties heighten for repeat offenses. When someone is convicted of a second or later offense of failing to maintain financial responsibility (uninsured driving), the statute typically requires the court to order the vehicle impounded. This mandate goes beyond fines or license suspensions and serves as a strong deterrent to prevent continued uninsured operation of a vehicle. The requirement is not dependent on the vehicle owner’s consent and is not left to the judge’s discretion in those cases of repeat offenses. For a first offense, impoundment is not typically mandated, which is why the move to a second or subsequent offense makes the rule explicit and automatic.