Minnesota, can now be charged for DUI in a car that doesn't start

[HumblePie]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds drunk driving conviction on a man asleep behind the wheel of an undriven, possibly inoperable vehicle.

Justice Alan C. PageThe Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. At 11:30pm on June 11, 2007, police found Daryl Fleck sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The vehicle's engine was cold to the touch, indicating it had not been driven recently. The keys were in the center console, not the ignition. Fleck admitted to having consumed around a dozen beers that night. Officers at the scene arrested him, and his blood alcohol level was found to be .18. A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.

"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.

Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that "towing assistance [was] likely available" creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could "easily" be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account.

As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the contrary.

"Although the facts of this case are not those of the typical physical control case in which a jury can infer that the defendant was in physical control because he drove the vehicle to where it came to rest, a jury could reasonably find that Fleck, having been found intoxicated, alone, and sleeping behind the wheel of his own vehicle with the keys in the vehicle's console, was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle and that he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger," Page wrote. "Based on the totality of the circumstances, the facts in the record, and the legitimate inferences drawn from them, we hold that a jury could reasonably conclude that Fleck was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more."

Fleck's three prior convictions elevated his sentence to a felony for which the trial judge imposed four years in prison. A copy of the decision is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

My feelings are this. They are taking to broad a definition of this and throwing common sense out the window. Now, this guy is a douche bag as this is multiple offender for DUI and needs to be taken off the streets permanently, of that I agree with and have no doubt. The method of removing him here is a slippery slope in my opinion.

I mean serious, what if I'm at a friends party and intended to crash there the night after a few drinks. Instead my friend and I have a falling out or I do with someone else crashing there and I decide to sleep it off in my car instead. If a cop pulls up and I am still a bit drunk I can get a DUI? That's insane! Just because they can't get him for public intoxication because he's on private property doesn't mean they can pervert the law in my opinion. Being accused and convicted of a crime you didn't commit because a cop and judge feel there is "intent" there is leads to a dangerous precedent.

I understand the wording of the law is meant if they come up on a car in a ditch that has someone behind the wheel that is drunk but not driving at the time because the car is in a ditch. Common sense here is that the only way the car got there is because it was driven there, thus leading to cause that the driver was driving drunk. But a car that can not drive, sitting on private property is over that fine line to me.

 

[Craig234]

Show me the car was undrivable, and I think I'd agree a DUI is wrong. Possibly undrivable? You left tha out of the topic.

 

[HumblePie]

Show me the car was undrivable, and I think I'd agree a DUI is wrong. Possibly undrivable? You left tha out of the topic.

A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.

"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.

 

[waggy]

I remember they used to recommend if you are drunk pull over and sleep it off. to save lives and save on the DUI.

now they are doing wahtever they can to nail you for it. one guy in town fought a DUI charge because he was in his garage drinking with friends and the car was in the driveway and the keys were hanging on a hook IN the garage. I never heard if he won or lost though

 

[Craig234]

A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.

"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.

The aritcle says possibly undrivable. For all we know it was driven drunk to where he was was found, and then a problem happened while he was in it or even after. This isn't a car with no motor in it.

 

[HumblePie]

The aritcle says possibly undrivable. For all we know it was driven drunk to where he was was found, and then a problem happened while he was in it or even after. This isn't a car with no motor in it.

No... he was at his apartment complex. Who knows if he was drinking at home or came from somewhere. Maybe he had a tiff with his wife and decided to sleep it off outside in the car?

The inoperable part is that the police could not get the car to start later after it was towed to the impound lot. The fact that the ignition wouldn't start kind of makes the car inoperable.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The aritcle says possibly undrivable. For all we know it was driven drunk to where he was was found, and then a problem happened while he was in it or even after. This isn't a car with no motor in it.

For all we know Obama could be a terrorist.. we should probably remove him from office.

 

[Genx87]

The aritcle says possibly undrivable. For all we know it was driven drunk to where he was was found, and then a problem happened while he was in it or even after. This isn't a car with no motor in it.

If it doesnt start how will he drive it? Prove he drove it drunk. The engine was cold. Good luck...........

 

[HumblePie]

For all we know Obama could be a terrorist.. we should probably remove him from office.

what the hell? derail some other thread

 

[Double Trouble]

This kind of thinking makes takes these anti-drunk-driving laws to absurd levels. Common sense has gone out the window.

If someone actually commits the crime and puts other people in danger, throw the book at them.... but stretching this stuff to such extent where people can be convicted simply because it would have been theoretically possible for them to put someone in danger (even though they didn't do so) is a perversion of justice IMO.

 

[daishi5]

This kind of thinking makes takes these anti-drunk-driving laws to absurd levels. Common sense has gone out the window.

If someone actually commits the crime and puts other people in danger, throw the book at them.... but stretching this stuff to such extent where people can be convicted simply because it would have been theoretically possible for them to put someone in danger (even though they didn't do so) is a perversion of justice IMO.

Very well put, but I want to play devils advocate. Should the fact that he has actually had 3 DUI, and therefore shown a habit of actually putting people in danger, add more weight to his theoretical ability to put people in danger?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This kind of thinking makes takes these anti-drunk-driving laws to absurd levels. Common sense has gone out the window.

If someone actually commits the crime and puts other people in danger, throw the book at them.... but stretching this stuff to such extent where people can be convicted simply because it would have been theoretically possible for them to put someone in danger (even though they didn't do so) is a perversion of justice IMO.

I agree. Its on the verge of thought crime. Its disgusting. If there is no plantiff or victim how can there be a crime. We have gone way too far.

 

[ayabe]

The law is the same in a lot of states, that's what it is and what you agree to in order to hold a drivers license.

DUI is a serious problem no doubt, but there needs to be some flexibility in any interpretation of the law, especially one with such serious repercussions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The aritcle says possibly undrivable. For all we know it was driven drunk to where he was was found, and then a problem happened while he was in it or even after. This isn't a car with no motor in it.

So we can arrest and convict people because they might have committed a crime.

Awesome.

 

[HumblePie]

Yep innocent until proven guilty on felony charges is now right out the window.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The law is the same in a lot of states, that's what it is and what you agree to in order to hold a drivers license.

DUI is a serious problem no doubt, but there needs to be some flexibility in any interpretation of the law, especially one with such serious repercussions.

The driving is a privilege not a right is a great defense until it breaks down as soon as you hit suburban neighborhoods where there is no mass transit and you must commute to work and live. You are pretty much strong armed and cornered into accepting it because you have to drive to live. Its insane.

 

[Craig234]

For all we know Obama could be a terrorist.. we should probably remove him from office.

Your logic is consistently atrocius. You don't undestand the placement of the presumption. Get behind the wheel of a car drunk - the burden of proof it's undrivable is yours.

 

[ViviTheMage]

haha

 

[Craig234]

Yep innocent until proven guilty on felony charges is now right out the window.

No, you prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. If his defense is that te car wasn't drivable or he never drove, the beer fairy gave him a ride, the burdenb is on him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your logic is consistently atrocius. You don't undestand the placement of the presumption. Get behind the wheel of a car drunk - the burden of proof it's undrivable is yours.

And they say Republicans are immoral. The burden of proof always rests on the State in a criminal proceeding.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Your logic is consistently atrocius. You don't undestand the placement of the presumption. Get behind the wheel of a car drunk - the burden of proof it's undrivable is yours.

I'd question the probable cause of interfering with someone sleeping in a parked car in a parking lot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nevermind. I should remember that the State is always right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd question the probable cause of interfering with someone sleeping in a parked car in a parking lot.

The government says it, he believes it, and that settles it.

 

[Craig234]

If it doesnt start how will he drive it? Prove he drove it drunk. The engine was cold. Good luck...........

Actually noting it was at his home parking location, I'm more open to the possibiolity of that as a defense. Elsewhere, not so much. But being in the car drunk, 'possibly' drivable, is still a bad idea.

 

[Craig234]

I'd question the probable cause of interfering with someone sleeping in a parked car in a parking lot.

In a community parking lot? Seems that's the officer's role to check things out.