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

[shira]

Wrong. The moral of the story is don't drink and drive. Make other plans for transportation or don't get drunk if you don't.

Perhaps you didn't read the full story. In Minnesota, if you're found in the passenger seat of a vehicle in a ditch, and your blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, you can be charged with (and convicted of) DUI.

What that means is if you arrange for a designated driver to take you home, but the driver goes into a ditch and leaves to get help, a cop finding you in the passenger seat of the vehicle can charge you with DUI.

Does THAT seem fair to you?

 

[Craig234]

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.

Of course people should not be convicted for 'possible crimes' in which they're not gulty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. They shouldn't b e arrested without a good reason, either.

A woman walking down a street doesn't provide anywhere near that level of likelihood they're prostituting.

A better analogy is, she says to a passing undercover cop, 'Want to party for $40?' Then, she's guilty of prostitution, because she can say all she likes she meant 'party' without sex, just talk, but few juries are goingto believe her. It's not *absolute proof* she meant sex, but it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless she was in a clown outfit with business cards for her children's party offering.

No one's answered my question yet showing how this is far more indicative of drunk driving.

Note, I haven't even defended this particular conviction - I'm suggesting it makes sense to make being in the car alone or with only drunk people a crime with the same penalties as drunk driving, unless there's evidence you were not driving or were 'sleepingit off' at the location of getting drunk like a bar parking lot. This is a reasonable balance of protecting the public, since drunk people don't need to get off their couch to go sleep in their car, but drunk drivers do need to pass out in their car after driving drunk not uncommonly.

 

[Craig234]

Perhaps you didn't read the full story. In Minnesota, if you're found in the passenger seat of a vehicle in a ditch, and your blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, you can be charged with (and convicted of) DUI.

What that means is if you arrange for a designated driver to take you home, but the driver goes into a ditch and leaves to get help, a cop finding you in the passenger seat of the vehicle can charge you with DUI.

Does THAT seem fair to you?

It makes sense to me that if a drunk driver crashes into sa ditch, that he can't slide to to the passenger seat and be immune to drunk drivign charges by saying there was a designated driver that can't be located.

It seems reasonable to me that there is a presumption by the evidence that he's a drunk driver and the burden shifts to his showing there was such a designated driver. If the officer can confirm it, he doesn't get arrested. If he can't, the guy is arrested for drunk driving, and when the driver is located with any reasonable evidence - a credit card receipt at the right time and area, an eyewitness they left together, anything that it's not just a buddy doing him a favor with a lie - the charges are dropped.

If this happened, the driver can take the keys with him - later when he shows he had the keys, not the drunk passenger, that's evidence to drop the charges.

I'll tell an anecdote about a drunk driving trial I was a juror on.

The officer's story: he was pulling the pickup over. He pulled behind it amd turned on the lights, and followed it to a left turn lane with a red light. When the truck stopped, the driver and passenger ducked down and switched places. WHen the light turned gree, the truck turned and pulled over. The driver then tested and arrested the passenger.

The defendant's story was that when they went into the turn lane and stopped, papers between them on the seat fell on the floor and they bent down and pickled them up - they did not switch places.

Maybe I'll leave it at that for people to say something before I say what trhe jury decided.

 

[lothar]

If Craig234's position on many issues(including this one) are were "progressives" stand, I'll never be a part of that movement.

That said, I wonder what Craig234's so called "progressives" would think about this particular issue?
Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? Henry Waxman?

This seems like something only a Republican would support but yet Craig234 is all over this one.
I'd like to know where on the political compass Craig234 falls?
He's certainly not a conservative, nor a libertarian, nor a liberal, nor a "progressive".
Where does he fall? Is he simply just a John Edward's populist?

 

[Craig234]

If Craig234's position on many issues(including this one) are were "progressives" stand, I'll never be a part of that movement.

That said, I wonder what Craig234's so called "progressives" would think about this particular issue?
Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? Henry Waxman?

This seems like something only a Republican would support but yet Craig234 is all over this one.
I'd like to know where on the political compass Craig234 falls?
He's certainly not a conservative, nor a libertarian, nor a liberal, nor a "progressive".
Where does he fall? Is he simply just a John Edward's populist?

Frankly, I don't view this as an issue with relevance to progressive politics. We're all against convicting innocent people, and we're all against drunk driivng. We have differences on issues about the evidence.

You're siimply wrong. And I dont see any reason John Edwards isn't a legitimate advocate for policies for the poor, as separate from his marital unfaithfulness and lies to cover it up.

 

[ebaycj]

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.

He didn't drive until you can prove he did.

 

[lothar]

Frankly, I don't view this as an issue with relevance to progressive politics. We're all against convicting innocent people, and we're all against drunk driivng. We have differences on issues about the evidence.

You're siimply wrong. And I dont see any reason John Edwards isn't a legitimate advocate for policies for the poor, as separate from his marital unfaithfulness and lies to cover it up.

I didn't say anything about his marital affair.
John Edwards is what we call a populist. He's neither a conservative, liberal, libertarian nor a progressive(as you define it).

 

[ebaycj]

Quite an argument you make.

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

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.

Just because "the odds are high" does not make your logic sound.

getting into your car while drunk != driving while drunk.

Just to be crystal fucking clear for you:
If he caused the car to go from a stationary rest into motion (in any way), he should be charged with drunk driving.

Since the car was never observed to be in motion by anyone, and the engine was cold by observation, it is COMPLETELY 100% plausible that he never drove the car, despite how strange it might be to sleep in your own car in your own driveway/parking lot.

 

[ebaycj]

Another wrinkle: What happens to people who are sleepwalking after taking a prescription Ambien who get in their cars and drive, but their brains are completely asleep? Do they get DUI's too?

 

[ebaycj]

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.



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.

As far as your setup, I did not know that. Apologies.

Non-forensic circumstantial evidence alone (and any inferences based on circumstantial evidence) should not be enough to convict anyone of DUI. Or any other crime for that matter.

Non-forensic circumstantial evidence should be used only to determine sentencing (harsher/milder) due to the circumstances surrounding the actual crime (hence the word Circumstantial).

Forensic circumstantial evidence is a different story entirely, but "sleeping in your car in your parking lot = driving drunk" is not forensic evidence.

 

[Craig234]

As far as your setup, I did not know that. Apologies.

Circumstantial evidence alone (and any inferences based on circumstantial evidence) should not be enough to convict anyone of DUI. Or any other crime for that matter. It should only be used to determine sentencing (harsher/milder) due to the circumstances (hence the word Circumstantial).

I think most people who say this mean a position I agree with: insufficient circumstancial evidence should not be used to convict.

I hope what people are objecting to are excessive assumptions of guilt. I agree.

But circumstancial evidence is used all the time for convictions, and properly when it's strong enough.

You say 'hence the word circumstantial', as if it means 'insufficient', but it doesn't.

I'm usually on the side defending not convicting people while a mob screams to do so. But when I think the evidence is enough, I support it, and in this case against a good percent on the other side.

I do think drunk driving is a big problem and we nee dto do more. That does not mean relaxing the standards of conviction.

It does mean creative ideas like mandatory breathalyzers on all cars. Is it that much a burdebto pay hundreds more in a car - reduced by economies of scale - to reduce drunk driving?

 

[ebaycj]

I'll tell an anecdote about a drunk driving trial I was a juror on.

... And we now find out what I've been suspecting since I started reading this thread.

Craig has been personally influenced by someone getting a DUI, and his opinion on the matter is therefore biased.

 

[Craig234]

Another wrinkle: What happens to people who are sleepwalking after taking a prescription Ambien who get in their cars and drive, but their brains are completely asleep? Do they get DUI's too?

I'll give you things I'd consider, without an answer:

On the one hand, it's a problem. It's unsafe. On a second hand, there's a difference between the unlikely, unexpected side effect of this and the predictable effect of choosing to get drunk without transportation.

On a third hand, to the extent this is a predictable risk of Ambien, it would imply precautions should be taken to prevent it - it's not ok to just let it happen kowing there's a risk. On a fourth hand, there are other questins - is there enough risk for the Amien drug to come with warnings abuot it and recommendations to prevent driving?

So, for what seems to be this very rare issue, I'd have to look at various things. But I would not be for criminal conviction for people who have no idea of the risk.

 

[shira]

Another wrinkle: What happens to people who are sleepwalking after taking a prescription Ambien who get in their cars and drive, but their brains are completely asleep? Do they get DUI's too?

I dreamt I was making love to a beautiful women in the back seat of my car. If I tell that to a cop, can I be arrested for being in an operable car while asleep?

 

[Craig234]

... And we now find out what I've been suspecting since I started reading this thread.

Craig has been personally influenced by someone getting a DUI, and his opinion on the matter is therefore biased.

There's a certain irony in you attacking me for leaping to cinclusions the evidence doesn't support, while... leaping to conclusions the evidence does not support.

Your posts have generally been better quality and civil for me not to attack this one more harshly, but I will point out the huge error you make.

The trial I mentioned was a long time ago, and left no impression on me at all on my views of drunk driving. I didn't have some emotional feeling at the inadequecy of the judicial system from it, passionate to argue the issue. It was a one-off case the judicial system seems to struggle a bit with simply because the evidence is contradictory and inaquedate enough, not something about the general issue.

Further, I'm glad I have never had first hand experiences with drunk driving casualties. My concern lies for the statistics, the strangers killed.

You simply took a reasonable speculation - does a participant have bias - and raced to the wrong conclusion. Now, *that's* something to apologize for doing, a false attack of bias.

I appreciate you doing so on the editing thing, but no need, while you had too much sarcasm in the comments, they weren't terribly uncivil and I can underswtand mentioning the high level of typos.

Actually I appreciated you recognizing the fact they aren't usually there.

 

[ebaycj]

Of course people should not be convicted for 'possible crimes' in which they're not gulty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. They shouldn't b e arrested without a good reason, either.

A woman walking down a street doesn't provide anywhere near that level of likelihood they're prostituting.

A better analogy is, she says to a passing undercover cop, 'Want to party for $40?' Then, she's guilty of prostitution, because she can say all she likes she meant 'party' without sex, just talk, but few juries are goingto believe her. It's not *absolute proof* she meant sex, but it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless she was in a clown outfit with business cards for her children's party offering.

No one's answered my question yet showing how this is far more indicative of drunk driving.

Note, I haven't even defended this particular conviction - I'm suggesting it makes sense to make being in the car alone or with only drunk people a crime with the same penalties as drunk driving, unless there's evidence you were not driving or were 'sleepingit off' at the location of getting drunk like a bar parking lot. This is a reasonable balance of protecting the public, since drunk people don't need to get off their couch to go sleep in their car, but drunk drivers do need to pass out in their car after driving drunk not uncommonly.

What about a situation, for example, which happened to me many years ago....

1. My car is parked at work.

2. I go out drinking with buddies from work, ride to the bar with one of them.

3. I, in my drunken state and inhibited mood, decide that I don't want to arrange a ride back to my car from my house the next morning, since I live alone. I ask the buddy who gave me a ride to drop me at my car.

4. I get in the car in the back seat and pass the fuck out, wake up at noon sober and drive home.

(or) (and possibly much more relevant to this case)

1. I am at a party, drinking underage.

2. Leaving my car at party and just getting a ride home would cause me hardship (parents, etc..), but I am too intoxicated to drive. There are two sober people at said party.

3. I get sober person 1 to drive me (in the passenger seat) in my own car to my house and park it in the driveway. Sober person 2 follows us in his car and takes sober person 1 back to the party.

4. I pass out on the way to my house in the passenger seat. Sober person 1 locks the car (with me inside) and tosses the keys on my lap.

5. I wake up a few hours later, and go inside (still drunk but not nearly as bad).


What do you have to say about these real-world situations? In neither situation did I cause the car to be in motion. Do I deserve a DUI for intentionally trying to avoid driving my car while drunk?

Yes, I understand, I could just have those people (or others who witnessed them driving me) testify on my behalf, and could probably get off based on their testimony. However, in the first case (first set, of 4), my buddy would have been admitting to his own DUI, and would have been unwilling to testify, had I got a DUI (I didn't). In the second case (second set, of 5), the other driver would not have had insurance on my car (thats how it worked at the time), and would have been admitting to driving without insurance, had I got a DUI (I didn't).

 

[Craig234]

Just because "the odds are high" does not make your logic sound.

getting into your car while drunk != driving while drunk.

Just to be crystal fucking clear for you:
If he caused the car to go from a stationary rest into motion (in any way), he should be charged with drunk driving.

Since the car was never observed to be in motion by anyone, and the engine was cold by observation, it is COMPLETELY 100% plausible that he never drove the car, despite how strange it might be to sleep in your own car in your own driveway/parking lot.

Yes, and if a police officer pulls you over and you give him permission to search your car and he finds a baggy of drugs in the side of the door, he has *no evidence* you know they were there, that a really nasty stranger didn't put them there the last time you parked your car hoping they'd get you arrested for drug charges. It's entirely possible, and extremely unlikely. Yet you support that getting him to not be arrested, because it's possible at all, right? If not, your whole arguent against arrest based on probability falls apart and the only question left is where you draw the line.

 

[Craig234]

What about a situation, for example, which happened to me many years ago....

1. My car is parked at work.

2. I go out drinking with buddies from work, ride to the bar with one of them.

3. I, in my drunken state and inhibited mood, decide that I don't want to arrange a ride back to my car from my house the next morning, since I live alone. I ask the buddy who gave me a ride to drop me at my car.

4. I get in the car in the back seat and pass the fuck out, wake up at noon sober and drive home.

(or) (and possibly much more relevant to this case)

1. I am at a party, drinking underage.

2. Leaving my car at party and just getting a ride home would cause me hardship (parents, etc..), but I am too intoxicated to drive. There are two sober people at said party.

3. I get sober person 1 to drive me (in the passenger seat) in my own car to my house and park it in the driveway. Sober person 2 follows us in his car and takes sober person 1 back to the party.

4. I pass out on the way to my house in the passenger seat. Sober person 1 locks the car (with me inside) and tosses the keys on my lap.

5. I wake up a few hours later, and go inside (still drunk but not nearly as bad).


What do you have to say about these real-world situations? In neither situation did I cause the car to be in motion. Do I deserve a DUI for intentionally trying to not drive my car while drunk?

I say you did not make adequate plans for transportation while drunk as you should, but that's not a crime; that your buddy would have been better off getting you into your house. but that's not a crime; that if an officer finds you drunk in your car, that there's enough for a presumption you drove drunk to arrest/charge you; that this fact is a big incentive for you to do better planning about your transportation while drunk; and that the witnesses that you were driven, not driving, should get the charges dismissed.

 

[ebaycj]

There's a certain irony in you attacking me for leaping to cinclusions the evidence doesn't support, while... leaping to conclusions the evidence does not support.

Your posts have generally been better quality and civil for me not to attack this one more harshly, but I will point out the huge error you make.

The trial I mentioned was a long time ago, and left no impression on me at all on my views of drunk driving. I didn't have some emotional feeling at the inadequecy of the judicial system from it, passionate to argue the issue. It was a one-off case the judicial system seems to struggle a bit with simply because the evidence is contradictory and inaquedate enough, not something about the general issue.

Further, I'm glad I have never had first hand experiences with drunk driving casualties. My concern lies for the statistics, the strangers killed.

You simply took a reasonable speculation - does a participant have bias - and raced to the wrong conclusion. Now, *that's* something to apologize for doing, a false attack of bias.

I appreciate you doing so on the editing thing, but no need, while you had too much sarcasm in the comments, they weren't terribly uncivil and I can underswtand mentioning the high level of typos.

Actually I appreciated you recognizing the fact they aren't usually there.

Me surmising that your opinion may be biased does not constitute an attack on you. It's just my opinion.

It's also a fact that everyone is biased in some way about everything that is not a completely 100% new experience to them.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't say anything about his marital affair.
John Edwards is what we call a populist. He's neither a conservative, liberal, libertarian nor a progressive(as you define it).

As I view him, he's a liberal/progressive on economic issues of the well being of the poor and middle class.

Populism is often overlapping with liberal/progressive, since it's driven by the well-being of the people in general.

Not always - if the country is bigoted, for example, whether race or sexuality or whatever, the progressives find their view of what's right doesn't match the majority.

 

[Craig234]

Me surmising that your opinion may be biased does not constitute an attack on you. It's just my opinion.

It's also a fact that everyone is biased in some way about everything that is not a completely 100% new experience to them.

Except that's not what you did. You stated that your suspicions of bias (offensive already IMO but you had the good manners not to voice them) were confirmed by a false event you wrongly imagined.

You stated as fact that I had had some experience and been biased by it.

IUt was wrong, and it wasn't some ''we're all biase dto new things' comment. I'm disapopinted to see y ou backpeddle from what you said instead of a simple sorry and learning from the error.

 

[ebaycj]

I'll give you things I'd consider, without an answer:

On the one hand, it's a problem. It's unsafe. On a second hand, there's a difference between the unlikely, unexpected side effect of this and the predictable effect of choosing to get drunk without transportation.

On a third hand, to the extent this is a predictable risk of Ambien, it would imply precautions should be taken to prevent it - it's not ok to just let it happen kowing there's a risk. On a fourth hand, there are other questins - is there enough risk for the Amien drug to come with warnings abuot it and recommendations to prevent driving?

So, for what seems to be this very rare issue, I'd have to look at various things. But I would not be for criminal conviction for people who have no idea of the risk.

I don't think you understand completely. You need to do some research on Ambien sleepwalking. People are not making decisions to drive with their conscious minds, yet are driving anyway, and they are under the influence of a drug. Under the letter of the law they could commit the actus reus of DUI. They should get off though, due to the lacking mens rea. However, in the case of drunk driving, it seems the requirement for mens rea has flown out the window.

 

[dmcowen674]

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?

Fail

You picked a poor choice to use the Red Blue Bullshit on this one.

Minnesota has one of the biggest track records of all the states for being able to not cow down to either Red or Blue.

Jesse Ventura ring a bell for you?

 

[ebaycj]

Except that's not what you did. You stated that your suspicions of bias (offensive already IMO but you had the good manners not to voice them) were confirmed by a false event you wrongly imagined.

You stated as fact that I had had some experience and been biased by it.

IUt was wrong, and it wasn't some ''we're all biase dto new things' comment. I'm disapopinted to see y ou backpeddle from what you said instead of a simple sorry and learning from the error.

Suspicions of bias should not be taken as offensive by the party in suspect, as they are only suspicions.

The fact of the matter is that you did sit in a jury on a case where someone was either convicted or not convicted of a DUI. That in and of itself biases you in one way or the other, period. Note that I said absolutely nothing about the degree of bias, which in this case I would place somewhere between "i don't like people who were probably DUI but got off due to a technicality" and "some asshole who was chugging a bottle of jack daniels while driving killed my wife and 7 kids", likely much closer to the former than the latter, but bias nonetheless.

 

[Zargon]

Yes, and if a police officer pulls you over and you give him permission to search your car and he finds a baggy of drugs in the side of the door, he has *no evidence* you know they were there, that a really nasty stranger didn't put them there the last time you parked your car hoping they'd get you arrested for drug charges. It's entirely possible, and extremely unlikely. Yet you support that getting him to not be arrested, because it's possible at all, right? If not, your whole arguent against arrest based on probability falls apart and the only question left is where you draw the line.

your car is your property. you are responsible for everything in it, even if its not yours unless you can prove otherwise. thats how it works.

thats your argument for this really?

and everyone has to blow all the time now to stop someone from drunk driving?

but it shouldnt worry us because we arent doing anything wrong right?

dude, move to the UK, you obviously belong in their super big brother state. you seem so willing to convict without evidence of a crime besides the THOUGHT of intent, and give away millions of rights just to 'feel safer'

its sad.