We are troubled by this conclusion. Neither the arresting officer’s unre-viewed probable cause determination nor a court’s ruling in the distant future on the merits of the City’s forfeiture claim can fully protect against an erroneous deprivation of a claimant’s possessory interest as his or her vehicle stands idle in a police lot for months or years. Nevertheless, we conclude that, on balance, the second Mathews factor weighs in favor of the City. We acknowledge that the risk of erroneous seizure and retention of a vehicle is reduced in the case of a DWI owner-arrestee, because a trained police officer’s assessment of the owner-driver’s state of intoxication can typically be expected to be accurate. See People v. Bennett, 238 A.D.2d 898, 899, 660 N.Y.S.2d 772, 774 (4th Dep’t 1997) (<HOLDING>). Yet the City’s victory on the second Mathews
holding officers 60 hours of training at two different police departments that he had read a book on the subject and that the methods used in interpretation of bloodstains were of the type relied upon by experts in the field was sufficient holding that the court properly instructed jurors that the police officers were experts in determining a persons state of intoxication recognizing several factors including the possibility that the persons subject to the police action are themselves violent or dangerous the duration of the action whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest the possibility that the suspect may be armed and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time holding that the state police is a state agency holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity