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

[GoPackGo]

"If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind, then put me in the electric chair for all my future crimes"

--Prince

 

[bfdd]

A friend of mine after we were out of high school let someone use his car to go pick up donuts at like 4 am after a party. He ended up getting a DUI in the mail because the corner camera picked up on the dude running a red light. He wasn't even in the car at the time and there was no arresting officer they mailed it to his house like a speeding ticket or running a red light ticket... It was absolutely ridiculous he got it thrown out damn near instantly.

 

[HumblePie]

A friend of mine after we were out of high school let someone use his car to go pick up donuts at like 4 am after a party. He ended up getting a DUI in the mail because the corner camera picked up on the dude running a red light. He wasn't even in the car at the time and there was no arresting officer they mailed it to his house like a speeding ticket or running a red light ticket... It was absolutely ridiculous he got it thrown out damn near instantly.

Red light and other traffic cameras for giving out offenses is another can of worms for another discussion topic.

 

[bfdd]

Red light and other traffic cameras for giving out offenses is another can of worms for another discussion topic.

Well i figured I'd post it since they tried to stick him with a DUI when they 1. never tested his blood alcohol percentage and 2. he wasn't even driving.

 

[Sinsear]

Back to the beginning. There is no PC from finding someone sleeping. .

/Police State

You = idiot. Someone sleeping in a car in a public place = most likely a police officer checking on them. It's a safety check. Then he wakes up...smells like alcohol, admits to drinking it. Make him perform SFST. Performance on SFST + oral admissions = arrest. Very easy.

 

[Sinsear]

Yes, pitch a tent and sleep in it until sober.

Of course then they can arrest you for public drunkenness then since you are outside.

Depends what state you are in. In NY there is no such law as "public intoxication" or "drunk in public".

 

[Zargon]

You = idiot. Someone sleeping in a car in a public place = most likely a police officer checking on them. It's a safety check. Then he wakes up...smells like alcohol, admits to drinking it. Make him perform SFST. Performance on SFST + oral admissions = arrest. Very easy.

private property != public place.

 

[BoberFett]

Minority Report is real in the U.S.

I know someone personally that was charged and found guilty and also was not driving the vehicle. In fact only went to the car to charge the phone to call someone. Of course could not prove that.

You are Guilty in the U.S. unless you can prove innocence or buy it.

MN is a blue state, and the most Democrat of all Democrats Craig is in favor of this ruling. Why do you support America-hating Democrats, Dave?


PS Does anyone else think Craig234 sounds like a marching cadence? I get an image of soldiers goose-stepping to his name.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Is it really relevant if the vehicle was operational or not? Even if the car was operational and the guy decided to sleep in his vehicle while drunk but had no intention of driving, do you consider that a DUI?

Convicting someone of a crime because they had the capacity to commit it but did not have any intent to commit the crime is wrong on so many levels.

Not to mention that if it is considered a DUI to sleep it off in your car and you have nowhere else to sleep then it isn't a stretch to think that instead of sleeping it off people will just try and drive home, especially if its the same crime.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

No. We don't convict people because they have the ability to commit a crime such as DUI we convict them if they have intent or actually do it. On top of that, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and I see nothing that implies anywhere near enough evidence to prove that he either drove drunk or intended to drive drunk that night.

A good argument can be made that he shouldn't be able to drive and potentially still be in jail for previous convictions but convicting someone because they "can" commit a crime is bullshit.

How about arresting any woman walking down the street after a certain hour? They have the ability to commit prostitution right? Even if the guy is a douche we are setting precedent that we all have to live by and I tend to err on the side of not locking up innocent people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

MN is a blue state, and the most Democrat of all Democrats Craig is in favor of this ruling. Why do you support America-hating Democrats, Dave?


PS Does anyone else think Craig234 sounds like a marching cadence? I get an image of soldiers goose-stepping to his name.

What's funny is that Craig cries corporatocracy then makes excuses, no approves, of people being arrested and found guilty unless they can demonstrate their innocence. Who needs to fear an Enron when there's someone who can take away your freedom by force? I thought the powerful harming someone because they could was wrong. It never occurred to me that abuse should be government sanctioned only.

 

[Darwin333]

Drunk drivers fall asleep in their cars a lot. The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

Utter nonsense. My vehicle is my property and as long as whoever owns the property my vehicle is on I should be able to sleep in my vehicle regardless of what condition I am in. Hell, a buddy of mine had a few drinks with his wife at home the other night and they got into an argument. He made the intelligent decision of not arguing while they were both drunk and he slept in his truck. You really think that guy should be locked up after he made just about the most responsible choice he could make considering the circumstances.

Are you really that willing to allow the government to convict you of a felony with no need to prove even intent to commit the crime?

What about those Acorn people, we should convict them of child prostitution because they, by their own admission, had the ability to help make it happen?

Do you have any idea how many crimes YOU have the ability to commit right now? IMO this is against everything our judicial system is supposed to stand for.

 

[ebaycj]

Sure I do. I have a spare bedroom thats always available to anyone thats been drinking and feels they cant drive. If my buddy calls me at 3am tore up and needs a ride, I will piss and moan, and will still go pick them up. Im not their nanny though and I cant track all of my friends actions on a friday or saturday night and be there for all of them.

I also though, dont write someone off for making one bad decision on occasion. I think you greatly underestimate how many people in the US have been convicted of a DUI as well.[/qote]

We're not talkig about forgiveness - no problem. We're talking about a premeditated, ongoing APPROVAl of their driving drunk and of dirivng home drunk to avoid DUI.

I don't care if it's 1 or 100 million, it doesn't change the wrong.



THat's a lie. You don't lack empathy to insist they not drive drunk and get arrested rather than do so.

And you lied again about what I said in the other thread. The 100% rate of 'the right', or you in this case who may or may not fit in that, gettting my position wrong continues, with anoher example added.

Craig, you need one (or more) of the following:
(a) A brand new keyboard, stat.
(b) To slow the fuck down when you're typing.
(c) To not post while completely drunk/stoned.

Seriously, it's hard to read your posts as of late.


Also, you're 100% in the wrong on this issue. DUI should be only valid if it can be proven without any doubt that the car was in motion while, at the same time, the defendant was sitting in the driver's seat or was operating other controls directly pertaining to the car's motion while sitting in another seat (brakes, parking brake, steering wheel, gear shift), while, at the same time, the defendant was sufficiently under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs as defined by law and determined by legal and consentual empirical testing.

Anything wording that is less specific than this definition is a travesty to the principle of the law, and therefore a travesty justice.

 

[ebaycj]

Drunk drivers fall asleep in their cars a lot. The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

No, it does not.

 

[ebaycj]

He was hurting someone when he drove drunk.

Who? Be specific.

 

[ebaycj]

Thanks for the story but it does't change anything in my post. You seem to be drawing some incorrect conclusions from it, especally about your blood alcohol going *up* after the short period right ater drinking.

Note even in your story your blood alcohol went down after you travelled. Alcohol leaves your blood stream about one ounce per hour for the average person.

What's the standard deviation? I bet it's pretty high.

Averages don't mean shit statistically without standard deviation.

 

[ebaycj]

This is just more proof that DWI Laws are about collecting money and not saving lives.

So this now means, if I am in my RV at a campground, I drink and fall asleep in one of the RV's beds...I can be arrested for DWI.

Possibly.

I believe that in most locales, there are different laws for DUI in the cabin of a vehicle that has a seperated cabin / driving space (RV's, Limousines, Box/Semi Trucks). What constitutes a "seperator" probably highly varies, though. The same principle often applies to "open container" laws: it's an "open container in the car" if it's in the driving space, it's not legally an "open container in the car" if it's in the trunk/cabin.

Similarly, in most locales, you could be shitfaced out of your mind and sleep in the trunk of your car (inaccessible to the cabin), and avoid DWI. Or, alternatively, you can put your keys in the trunk, and sleep in the cabin while shitfaced. Same thing.

It would be interesting to see the case you are proposing tried in court, though.

 

[ebaycj]

You = idiot. Someone sleeping in a car in a public place = most likely a police officer checking on them. It's a safety check. Then he wakes up...smells like alcohol, admits to drinking it. Make him perform SFST. Performance on SFST + oral admissions = arrest. Very easy.

If he was smart, he would wake up, start his in-vehicle audio recording system (with local digital recording and near-synchronous replication over the cell data network to a secure server), and assure the officer he was fine through the window (without opening door or window), then tell the officer to go about his business, and that he was going to continue sleeping.

 

[alphatarget1]

I have concluded that the failure of democracy stems from the unfortunate fact that people like Craig get to vote.

 

[ebaycj]

No. We don't convict people because they have the ability to commit a crime such as DUI we convict them if they have intent or actually do it. On top of that, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and I see nothing that implies anywhere near enough evidence to prove that he either drove drunk or intended to drive drunk that night.

A good argument can be made that he shouldn't be able to drive and potentially still be in jail for previous convictions but convicting someone because they "can" commit a crime is bullshit.

How about arresting any woman walking down the street after a certain hour? They have the ability to commit prostitution right? Even if the guy is a douche we are setting precedent that we all have to live by and I tend to err on the side of not locking up innocent people.

That's true. If a man intended to sleep the night in the back seat of his car in the bar parking lot, he likely did not have the mens rea (intent) to commit DUI.

 

[Craig234]

Is it really relevant if the vehicle was operational or not? Even if the car was operational and the guy decided to sleep in his vehicle while drunk but had no intention of driving, do you consider that a DUI?

Convicting someone of a crime because they had the capacity to commit it but did not have any intent to commit the crime is wrong on so many levels.

Not to mention that if it is considered a DUI to sleep it off in your car and you have nowhere else to sleep then it isn't a stretch to think that instead of sleeping it off people will just try and drive home, especially if its the same crime.

It's relevant in that if for some reasons the car is in a condition he couldn't have driven it drunk, that's a valid defense.

If he could have, it seems situatiional to me. It seems to me that the situation of someone sleeping drunk in a car outside their apartment is a strong indicator of a likelihood of drunk driving and should be taken into account. You look at all the evidence available. What do you know about their whereabouts before the time they were found? What can witnesses say? What is their reason for it? Is there an alibi?

You haven't answered my question, what is the reason someone is at their apartment out sleeping drunk in their car if they hadn't driven it, and they have no evidence they hadn't been driving?

They're sitting at home in the apartment on the couch drunking, oh my gosh, drunk, roll over onthe couch? Go to bed? Or walk out the door go to the parking area and sleep in the car?

If they're on the side of the highway, there's not much doubt they drove drunk to get there.

I've already said I'm ok with not arresting them sleeping outside a venue for drinking like a bar, that IS plausible they slept instead of driving.

 

[Craig234]

Who? Be specific.

He specifically put everyone at risk who was not safe because of his incapacitated driving.

When you ask who, you're arguing drunk driving isn't a crime unless he hits someone?

If you see a crowd and shoot into it, and luckily the bullt misses everyone, you still commited a crime.

It's just a worse crime if you hit someone - which is a debatable topic about intent versus effect.

 

[Craig234]

No, it does not.

Quite an argument you make.

At least you did ok on the RV worry raised by gopackgo.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, you need one (or more) of the following:
(a) A brand new keyboard, stat.
(b) To slow the fuck down when you're typing.
(c) To not post while completely drunk/stoned.

Seriously, it's hard to read your posts as of late.

Sorry for the bad typos. As I've said elsewhere, I'm temprarily on a PS3 setup that's not good for editing/typing and there will by more typos, it's not too good for editing. Hopefully on a PC soon.

For what it's worth I think most posts are not hard to read. A few are not as easy.

Also, you're 100% in the wrong on this issue. DUI should be only valid if it can be proven without any doubt that the car was in motion while, at the same time, the defendant was sitting in the driver's seat or was operating other controls directly pertaining to the car's motion while sitting in another seat (brakes, parking brake, steering wheel, gear shift), while, at the same time, the defendant was sufficiently under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs as defined by law and determined by legal and consentual empirical testing.

Anything wording that is less specific than this definition is a travesty to the principle of the law, and therefore a travesty justice.

In general I'm all for that. But in this case, it falls into what's a reasonable inference from the circumstancial edvidence. Neither you nor anyone has answered my question on that.

 

[Craig234]

Utter nonsense. My vehicle is my property and as long as whoever owns the property my vehicle is on I should be able to sleep in my vehicle regardless of what condition I am in. Hell, a buddy of mine had a few drinks with his wife at home the other night and they got into an argument. He made the intelligent decision of not arguing while they were both drunk and he slept in his truck. You really think that guy should be locked up after he made just about the most responsible choice he could make considering the circumstances.

Are you really that willing to allow the government to convict you of a felony with no need to prove even intent to commit the crime?

What about those Acorn people, we should convict them of child prostitution because they, by their own admission, had the ability to help make it happen?

Do you have any idea how many crimes YOU have the ability to commit right now? IMO this is against everything our judicial system is supposed to stand for.

That's a plausible scenario. In which case the available evidence indludes the testimony of his wife that he was at home and they got in a fight, and the officer does't arrest him for drunk driving.

In the worst case, she lies - and he can argue his case to a jury that she's lying with whatever other evidence there is.

The law isn't perfect - if he has a wife who is willing to lie to put him in jail, she has a lot better ways to do it already. Bruise herself and say he hit her, plant drugs in his car and make an anonymous call...

But I guess you would say every domestic abuse case in which she COULD have injured herself should be dismissed if he claims that, every drug possesion case the driver SAYS they're planted should be dismissed.

If the law is made for people not to get in a car without a sober driver, period, with exceptions for extenuating circumstances and sleeping it off where they got drunk without any driviing, then it seems we'd all besafer as people who drive drunk and pass out in their cars are subject to accountabiliity without any real issues of restricting legitimate rights or false arrest. You're sitting at home on the couch drunk, don't get up, and go to to garage and sleep in your car. Not that terrible.