Car Passenger charged with DUI...

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Trader05
i know in nj you get a dui if:

Your in the passenger seat of your car drunk and whoever is driving gets a dui
Sitting/Sleeping in your car drunk
Even having your keys in the door and your drunk lol

NJ SUCKS!

There is a difference between getting charged with a DUI and actually being convicted. I know in TN people have been charged with DUI for being in the back seat of their car asleep while drunk but they are not actually convicted. I'm about 99% sure you have to have the keys in the ignition and be in the driver's seat OR someone else who is drunk driving your car and you are in the car.

 

[DigitalCancer]

LOL. Technically he wasn't driving, and it stated that the driver didn't take his hand off the wheel so...Drunk dude wasn't in 'complete' control....

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
LOL. Technically he wasn't driving, and it stated by the attorney for the defense that the driver didn't take his hand off the wheel so...Drunk dude wasn't in 'complete' control....

fixed.

but at the least then the driver should get some kind of reckless driving ticket. for not taking his hand off the wheel he sure was swerving all over.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Maximus96
kind of defeats the purpose of a designated driver, no?

No it doesn't - you're fine as long as you don't let your drunk passenger hold the wheel while you take a bite of a sammich.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
LOL. Technically he wasn't driving, and it stated by the attorney for the defense that the driver didn't take his hand off the wheel so...Drunk dude wasn't in 'complete' control....

fixed.

but at the least then the driver should get some kind of reckless driving ticket. for not taking his hand off the wheel he sure was swerving all over.

Your point is well taken, but remember that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop, who only saw the passenger compartment of the car from a substantial distance, in the dark, is more correct about what was going on in the car than the two people in it. All of that, of course, assumes that the driver and/or passenger didn't admit that the driver took both hands off the wheel.

As I said, I still regard this as a silly case to prosecute, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair if the passenger received a DUI for this.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
LOL. Technically he wasn't driving, and it stated by the attorney for the defense that the driver didn't take his hand off the wheel so...Drunk dude wasn't in 'complete' control....

fixed.

but at the least then the driver should get some kind of reckless driving ticket. for not taking his hand off the wheel he sure was swerving all over.

Your point is well taken, but remember that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop, who only saw the passenger compartment of the car from a substantial distance, in the dark, is more correct about what was going on in the car than the two people in it. All of that, of course, assumes that the driver and/or passenger didn't admit that the driver took both hands off the wheel.

As I said, I still regard this as a silly case to prosecute, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair if the passenger received a DUI for this.

it would be a landmark case if the passenger did wouldn't it?
i highly doubt he will either, but it's worthy of going to trial.

 

[dullard]

So what you are saying is that we should be able to get completely trashed at the bars, sit alone in the passenger seat, and legally drive home because our butt is in an unusal location?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

it would be a landmark case if the passenger did wouldn't it?
i highly doubt he will either, but it's worthy of going to trial.

I have no idea if it would be a landmark case, to be honest - there are some wacky prosecutions out there.

The thing is, as a former prosecutor, I would only take a case to trial if:

a) I was convinced the defendant was in fact guilty;

b) I had at least a strong likelihood of prevailing at trial; and

c) The prosecution was in the best interests of justice.

Here, I think the passenger is likely technically guilty, though I don't think his "crime" is one the law is meant to punish. Accordingly, I'll answer yes to a, above, maybe to b, and no to c. I think this is a waste of judicial resources, and really do think this guy will be justified in feeling screwed if he ends up stuck with a DUI conviction under these circumstances. The problem is that, since he wasn't actually driving, the parties may have a hard time coming up with a lesser offense for him to plead guilty to.

 

[QED]

I somehow doubt that the cop made up the part of the driver taking his hands off of the wheel to bite into his sandwich.

Occam's Razor comes into play here-- it's be far easier for him to believe that the driver simply was driving erratically. I'm guessing the driver or his drunk passenger were the ones who tried to explain the erratic driving to the cop by saying the passenger was just trying to help as the driver was biting into his sandwich and erroneously believing (as some here on ATOT appear to) that being in the passenger's seat makes you immune from a DUI.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: dullard
So what you are saying is that we should be able to get completely trashed at the bars, sit alone in the passenger seat, and legally drive home because our butt is in an unusal location?

That's an absurd analogy, and I imagine you must know it is.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: dullard
So what you are saying is that we should be able to get completely trashed at the bars, sit alone in the passenger seat, and legally drive home because our butt is in an unusal location?

Yes, that's obviously what I meant.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Here, I think the passenger is likely technically guilty, though I don't think his "crime" is one the law is meant to punish. Accordingly, I'll answer yes to a, above, maybe to b, and no to c. I think this is a waste of judicial resources, and really do think this guy will be justified in feeling screwed if he ends up stuck with a DUI conviction under these circumstances. The problem is that, since he wasn't actually driving, the parties may have a hard time coming up with a lesser offense for him to plead guilty to.

Assuming what the cop described is accurate, who do you think should be charged with what? You shouldn't be able to allow a drunk passenger (or any passenger, IMO) steer your car for you. Someone deserves a ticket here.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dullard
So what you are saying is that we should be able to get completely trashed at the bars, sit alone in the passenger seat, and legally drive home because our butt is in an unusal location?

That's an absurd analogy, and I imagine you must know it is.

No need to be rational in such threads on AT. The lynch mob will settle for nothing less than death for someone that drinks and drives. Hell, apparently, even if they were just holding the wheel for a few seconds.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: DonVito
Here, I think the passenger is likely technically guilty, though I don't think his "crime" is one the law is meant to punish. Accordingly, I'll answer yes to a, above, maybe to b, and no to c. I think this is a waste of judicial resources, and really do think this guy will be justified in feeling screwed if he ends up stuck with a DUI conviction under these circumstances. The problem is that, since he wasn't actually driving, the parties may have a hard time coming up with a lesser offense for him to plead guilty to.

Assuming what the cop described is accurate, who do you think should be charged with what? You shouldn't be able to allow a drunk passenger (or any passenger, IMO) steer your car for you. Someone deserves a ticket here.

As I said above, I think the driver should be cited for reckless or careless driving, and the passenger charged with nothing.

 

[Scarpozzi]

That's kind of ridiculous, but then again....he did have his hands on the wheel...

 

[waggy]

hmm

well he was in control of the vehicle and drunk. but thats still insane.

though they are getting tough on drunk drivers and nailing anyone they can. i have heard stories of them nailing people who were just sitting in the car etc.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
That's kind of ridiculous, but then again....he did have his hands on the wheel...

QFT

 

[AMCRambler]

Ok here's a what if. Suppose you're driving a drunk friend home and they grab the wheel while you're driving. The car swerves cop pulls you over, he fails sobriety test. Does he get a DUI for that? Or does the driver need to be holding a sandwich? Whether the dude was eating a sandwich is pretty much pointless. If he was driving the car, and the drunk tard in passenger seat grabs the wheel, then give the jerk in the right seat a DUI, but don't blame the driver.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: Queasy

A state trooper says Derek Pittman had reached over and was steering the car while the driver was taking a bite of a sandwich that he was holding in both hands.

That's one big ass samich.

:laugh:

 

[alkemyst]

Technically the way the law reads if you have the keys to the vehicle and are drunk, regardless if someone else is driving; you can be arrested as well.

This was not the case here, but that is the law.

You can also be arrested for DUI:

sleeping in the backseat with keys.

washing the vehicle in your private driveway while drinking and possession of the keys.

going back to your car to get something out of it.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Technically the way the law reads if you have the keys to the vehicle and are drunk, regardless if someone else is driving; you can be arrested as well.

This was not the case here, but that is the law.

You can also be arrested for DUI:

sleeping in the backseat with keys.

washing the vehicle in your private driveway while drinking and possession of the keys.

going back to your car to get something out of it.

So if I have keyless start, I can't get DUI?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Technically the way the law reads if you have the keys to the vehicle and are drunk, regardless if someone else is driving; you can be arrested as well.

This was not the case here, but that is the law.

You can also be arrested for DUI:

sleeping in the backseat with keys.

washing the vehicle in your private driveway while drinking and possession of the keys.

going back to your car to get something out of it.

Yup. Pretty soon MADD will conquer the world and bring back prohibition!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Technically the way the law reads if you have the keys to the vehicle and are drunk, regardless if someone else is driving; you can be arrested as well.

This was not the case here, but that is the law.

You can also be arrested for DUI:

sleeping in the backseat with keys.

washing the vehicle in your private driveway while drinking and possession of the keys.

going back to your car to get something out of it.

So if I have keyless start, I can't get DUI?

Even though that was a pathetic troll, I will comment:

If you have a way to start your car and you are in proximity (I can't remember the legal term they use) while over the legal limit they can arrest you whether or not your are actually driving.

DUI law is part of the 'traffic' laws, as such it doesn't follow the same rules federal and civil crimes and process have too.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Even though that was a pathetic troll, I will comment:

If you have a way to start your car and you are in proximity (I can't remember the legal term they use) while over the legal limit they can arrest you whether or not your are actually driving.

DUI law is part of the 'traffic' laws, as such it doesn't follow the same rules federal and civil crimes and process have too.

DUI is not part of traffic laws - it's a criminal law. The reason a person can be prosecuted for being passed out in a car drunk with the keys in his pocket is that he is at least nominally in control of the vehicle while drunk, and thus in violation of the elements of DUI. Personally I don't like to see prosecutions where the person isn't actually driving, and as I have said above, I think this is a particularly bogus prosecution.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yup. Pretty soon MADD will conquer the world and bring back prohibition!

I think they would like it to stay actually, they are one of the most powerful lobbies around. The way you can now attach unrelated issues to another issue and pass them as law makes MADD/SADD particularly interesting to those with items that would not pass on their own.

It's the ultimate gimmick, who is going to argue with a mother that just buried her child due to a drunken driver hitting them.

Statistically drunk driving is not causing a lot of problems when you consider in many metro areas friday night through sunday morning a very high percentage of people on the road after 10pm'ish are legally drunk.