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

[Genx87]

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.

Or he lived in the complex and went to sit in the car. You still havent proved he drove the car. Especially when the car was cold and couldnt be started by the arresting officer.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Of course it is a bad idea. But a bad idea shouldnt become illegal until he actually drives the car. I dont like this ruling at all. And I am a strong advocate for harsher DUI penalties.

 

[Hacp]

We need to fire these judges in Minnesota.

 

[Vic]

Ironically, rulings like this will only increase the number of drunks on the road. If they are going to get a DUI for sleeping it off in their cars, they may as well risk driving home. Punishing people for what they might have done always just encourages people to go ahead and do it.

 

[dawp]

there may have been a slow drain and a week battery and after a couple of weeks of no use in the impound the battery was dead. without more info on the condition of the car, there is no way of knowing.


a week battery without daily use will go dead. and if there is a drain in it, it wont take long.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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

I don't understand the connection. Sleeping in a car in a parking lot is not illegal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

there may have been a slow drain and a week battery and after a couple of weeks of no use in the impound the battery was dead. without more info on the condition of the car, there is no way of knowing.


a week battery without daily use will go dead. and if there is a drain in it, it wont take long.

Doesn't seem the government was too particular in determining the facts of the matter does it?

Besides, consider the principle here. Someone gets into their car and sleeps off a drunk. Now they are criminals. Some things get carried too far, and this I think is one of them. It's not hard to go from this to people having a drink in a bar and having keys on their person to be guilty. They might not have someone else drive them home. They might not wait until they sober up. They might drink too much to know the difference.

When the state can arrest and convict on maybes it's time to be concerned.

 

[Double Trouble]

Ironically, rulings like this will only increase the number of drunks on the road. If they are going to get a DUI for sleeping it off in their cars, they may as well risk driving home. Punishing people for what they might have done always just encourages people to go ahead and do it.

Good point, I agree on that one as well. Someone sleeping it off in the car in the bar parking lot is not a danger to anyone... but if you're going to treat that person the same as someone who actually got in the car and put people in danger, then there's less incentive to keep the person from trying to drive home.

This line of reasoning of "could possibly commit a crime" being a crime in itself is an incredible slippery slope. For example, lets say you drink a beer and leave half a can sitting on the table, and a minor happens to walk by. They could argue that I committed a crime of child endangerment because there was the possibility of that minor grabbing the beer -- even if that didn't happen. The possibilities are endless, pretty much a thought-crime scenario.

I hope this ends up in front of the SCOTUS and gets overturned... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Craig234]

I don't understand the connection. Sleeping in a car in a parking lot is not illegal.

We didn't say illegal, we said probable cause for 'disturbing' him. Assuming the police have the permission to keep an eye on the lot. They chck him out, find he's drunk behind the wheel of a car.

Npw there are police and prosecutorial discretion to belive his story and not press charges, there's a jury who can not convict. Based on the situation and his repeat offender record, he was not let off.

Of course, a habitually repeat drunk driving convict, with estimates IIRC that for one conviction there were an average of 70 offenses, no doubt he was just innocently drunk climbing into his car.

I will clarify one thing. I'm advocating what I think the law should be. If the axtualy statute required proving he was driving, then at his home, as I said, tat's a reasonable doubt probably.

There are two main possibilities. Which is reasonable:

He drove home drunk and went to sleep in the car while it cooled.

At home drunk, instead of sleeping in his apartment, he left the partment and slept in the car.

 

[dawp]

Doesn't seem the government was too particular in determining the facts of the matter does it?

Besides, consider the principle here. Someone gets into their car and sleeps off a drunk. Now they are criminals. Some things get carried too far, and this I think is one of them. It's not hard to go from this to people having a drink in a bar and having keys on their person to be guilty. They might not have someone else drive them home. They might not wait until they sober up. They might drink too much to know the difference.

When the state can arrest and convict on maybes it's time to be concerned.

I was just point out that the car could have been drivable at the time of the arrest.

as far as the arrest itself, this country is getting worse all the time and I'm not sure where it will end. the politicians on both sides don't really care about the people who put them in office.

 

[Craig234]

Good point, I agree on that one as well. Someone sleeping it off in the car in the bar parking lot is not a danger to anyone... but if you're going to treat that person the same as someone who actually got in the car and put people in danger, then there's less incentive to keep the person from trying to drive home.

This line of reasoning of "could possibly commit a crime" being a crime in itself is an incredible slippery slope. For example, lets say you drink a beer and leave half a can sitting on the table, and a minor happens to walk by. They could argue that I committed a crime of child endangerment because there was the possibility of that minor grabbing the beer -- even if that didn't happen. The possibilities are endless, pretty much a thought-crime scenario.

I hope this ends up in front of the SCOTUS and gets overturned... but I'm not holding my breath.

I doubt he'd be arrested or convicted for sleeping it off in a bar bar parking lot. What's the story, he got drunk and then drove drunk to the bar?

 

[Craig234]

I was just point out that the car could have been drivable at the time of the arrest.

as far as the arrest itself, this country is getting worse all the time and I'm not sure where it will end. the politicians on both sides don't really care about the people who put them in office.

You were right about the car it seems, but how is arresting drunk drivers not caring abuot the voters?

 

[Robor]

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

Douche

 

[Fear No Evil]

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.

LOL. Wow. The burden of proof is now on the accused. I guess we know where the 'progressives' want to move this country.

 

[KMFJD]

I though DUI stood for driving under the influence...there is no evidence he was driving..what's next? attempted murder for carrying a loaded weapon and looking angrily at someone?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL. Wow. The burden of proof is now on the accused. I guess we know where the 'progressives' want to move this country.

Craig believes in the moral superiority of the State. Look at the NK/SK thread where he apologizes for their dictatorship. Besides, our rights come from the State, so we haven't any reason to complain if they take them away. Unless it's a corporation or Republican involved of course.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

Many people don't realize that is what the law is. I know it's been this way for several years in my state.

I have a friend who was driving home from a party and decided he was too drunk so he pulled over to sleep it off. Along came a state trooper and arrested him for DUI. The car wasn't running, but he had the keys in his pocket. So with such a stupid interpretation of the law it's now better to drive home drunk then to pull over and sleep it off so you don't expose yourself to a DUI. They stay on your record now for 10 years!! 10 years?!@?! That's just insane.

 

[Kirby]

Ironically, rulings like this will only increase the number of drunks on the road. If they are going to get a DUI for sleeping it off in their cars, they may as well risk driving home. Punishing people for what they might have done always just encourages people to go ahead and do it.

1.) Sleep in the car and chance a DUI
2.) Sleep at home in a warm bed, bang the Misses and chance a DUI

Sounds like an obvious choice to me. The need change DUI to DSPCPDETYMNHDAUI, Driving or Sleeping in Parked Car with the Possibility of Driving Even Though You May Not Have Done Anything Under the Influence.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

We didn't say illegal, we said probable cause for 'disturbing' him. Assuming the police have the permission to keep an eye on the lot. They chck him out, find he's drunk behind the wheel of a car.

Npw there are police and prosecutorial discretion to belive his story and not press charges, there's a jury who can not convict. Based on the situation and his repeat offender record, he was not let off.

Of course, a habitually repeat drunk driving convict, with estimates IIRC that for one conviction there were an average of 70 offenses, no doubt he was just innocently drunk climbing into his car.

I will clarify one thing. I'm advocating what I think the law should be. If the axtualy statute required proving he was driving, then at his home, as I said, tat's a reasonable doubt probably.

There are two main possibilities. Which is reasonable:

He drove home drunk and went to sleep in the car while it cooled.

At home drunk, instead of sleeping in his apartment, he left the partment and slept in the car.

Sleeping in your car is still not probable cause. No matter how you paint it. Is walking on the street probably cause? Sitting on a park bench? Laying out on the beach?

 

[Craig234]

Many people don't realize that is what the law is. I know it's been this way for several years in my state.

I have a friend who was driving home from a party and decided he was too drunk so he pulled over to sleep it off. Along came a state trooper and arrested him for DUI. The car wasn't running, but he had the keys in his pocket. So with such a stupid interpretation of the law it's now better to drive home drunk then to pull over and sleep it off so you don't expose yourself to a DUI. They stay on your record now for 10 years!! 10 years?!@?! That's just insane.

No, he'd already committed the crime of DUI. His good choice was not to have driven from the party at all while drunk. And driving more drunk to avoid a DUI once he made that choice is more danger.

 

[Craig234]

Sleeping in your car is still not probable cause. No matter how you paint it.

Please quote the law backing you up. The check out people for less suspicion all the time.

 

[nobodyknows]

I though DUI stood for driving under the influence...there is no evidence he was driving..what's next? attempted murder for carrying a loaded weapon and looking angrily at someone?

Heh, we had some poor bastard in this state spent several months in jail because in the wee hours of the morning he was drunk and spouting off about "running the governor over" at a convience store in the state capitol. The employee called the cops and he had a .22 automatic rifle and a machetee in the trunk so they arressted him. He was in jail for months until they let him out. I don't know the whole story because it was hushed up but they had him locked for for quite a while.

 

[nobodyknows]

No, he'd already committed the crime of DUI. His good choice was not to have driven from the party at all while drunk. And driving more drunk to avoid a DUI once he made that choice is more danger.

Your wrong of course. The law was intended to stop dangerous driving. My friend thought he could drive but then realized he was drunker then he thought so he did the right think and pulled over to sleep it off. He got ticketed for being responsible and now has a DUI on his record for another 7 years? I can guaratee you that next time he will take his chances and drive home. He may run into you and kill you, but too bad, so sad.

The laws are tough enough, the authorities don't need to be pulling crap like this. Let a sleeping dog lay.

 

[Thump553]

Minnesota must have an extremely broad definition of operating a motor vehicle, one that goes beyond logic and common sense. From when I was in Wisconsin I remember a WI Supreme Court decision holding that sitting in the driver's seat, asleep and parked but engine running to keep warm, was sufficient to constitute operation of a motor vehicle for a DUI, but this goes way beyond that.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Please quote the law backing you up. The check out people for less suspicion all the time.

Are you claiming that makes it lawful?


"The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"."

Assuming somebody asleep in a car has committed a crime is not at all reasonable for even the most prudent and cautious without perhaps in addition to the evidence of the person sleeping the the car is running, the keys in the ignition etc etc etc. Something else needs to be there.