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

[ebaycj]

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.

In a car with snow on it, and a cold engine, in a parking lot, and freshly fallen snow on the ground indicating that I did not move the car anywhere in the last 8-12 hours (since it started snowing)? Snow also indicating that the only door opened was the rear passenger side door? Because that was the situation in the first case.

Or, were you referring to the second situation?

Now you see why I keep a digital camera and a digital recording device in my car at all times.

 

[ebaycj]

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.

You assumed that I meant you were COMPLETELY biased, which I did not mean.

bias = anything other than a 50/50 even split (which just like "black" and "white", very rarely actually happens in real life).

if you're split 51/49 between two issues, you're biased.

 

[Craig234]

In a car with snow on it, and a cold engine, in a parking lot, and freshly fallen snow on the ground indicating that I did not move the car anywhere in the last 8-12 hours (since it started snowing)? Snow also indicating that the only door opened was the rear passenger side door? Because that was the situation in the first case.

Or, were you referring to the second situation?

Now you see why I keep a digital camera and a digital recording device in my car at all times.

No, as I stated previously, all available evidence should be considered, and if it shows you were no tdriving, you should not be arrested.

On a side note, I've long advocated all police cars should get 360 degree video on all the time on duty as much as technically and financially feasible. It seems usefl for private citizens too.

 

[Craig234]

You assumed that I meant you were COMPLETELY biased, which I did not mean.

bias = anything other than a 50/50 even split (which just like "black" and "white", very rarely actually happens in real life).

if you're split 51/49 between two issues, you're biased.

This sounds like looking for a literalism to evade accountability.

When you make a post accusing someone of bias, you are saying it's substantive, not 51/49.

Nothing I said justifies even 51/49, but your post said a lot more.

This is round 3 on whether you are going to deal with the error,m the first time in my view being wrong evasions. We don't really need any more of that.

 

[ebaycj]

This sounds like looking for a literalism to evade accountability.

When you make a post accusing someone of bias, you are saying it's substantive, not 51/49.

Nothing I said justifies even 51/49, but your post said a lot more.

This is round 3 on whether you are going to deal with the error,m the first time in my view being wrong evasions. We don't really need any more of that.

You want it fucking clear? OK.

My first thought while reading this thread is "man craig is furiously posting in here, wonder why".

After reading posts that didn't make logical sense to me (which, most times we see eye-to-eye), I thought "I bet somewhere along the line craig was influenced on this situation more than the average person. Maybe not a huge influence, but something is definitely there.".

Then you admitted to being on a jury that tried a DUI case.

Then I posted.

That's it. It wasn't meant as an attack, because ad-hom is a fallacy. And in your case, I don't think your bias on this issue is 50/50. Or 51/49 for that matter. Probably more like 60/40 or 66.6/33.3. So it's not a huge bias. But I still stand by the fact that it's there.

 

[Craig234]

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.

You aren't following the discussion.

An argument was made, I responded to it, and you responded with something unrelated.

The topic was the claim that the fact there's any possibility, even very remote, of any other explanation means by definition inadequate evidence for conviction.

I responded this is not right and picked an example about that topic. It didn't matter about some issues ou raised later that was unrelated about possesions in a car, with the very convincing "that's how it works" to explain the difference of when you agree and disagree; I could pick any number of examples not involving 'possesions in cars', take the 'party' example on prostitution I posted.

thats your argument for this really?

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

A question mark is not an argument.

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.

No one's talking about convicting on thinking about a crime. I'm against that, as anyone with common sense reading my comments knows. We're talking about drunk driving and inferences of COMMITED crime.

One thing I'll say about the effect of jury duty, that's not bias but awareness, is the importance of objective evidence.

I've seen in trials the difficulty that utterly conrtradictory and unrelable eyewitness testimony causes.

In the example trial I mentioned previously - about which no one has commented yet - the police officer said the two drivers were wearing very distinctive and different street clothes so he could confirm that they had switrched places, while the defendant said that the two both had on paint splatter-covered overalls that looked the same, contributing to not knowing if they switched places How can a jury tell who is lying? How useful would a video on the plice dashboard showing the switch have been?

 

[ebaycj]

No, as I stated previously, all available evidence should be considered, and if it shows you were no tdriving, you should not be arrested.

On a side note, I've long advocated all police cars should get 360 degree video on all the time on duty as much as technically and financially feasible. It seems usefl for private citizens too.

Cars?

I'd like to see cops with video cameras on their foreheads and quadraphonic audio recording around their necks. They simply can't be trusted with the power they have.

As a group? No way do I trust them at all, ever, in any encounter, unless I specifically called them about something.

Individuals, on a case-by-case basis, maybe. Though a long track record of "good/honest/etc... service" is a PERFECT cover for one or two LARGE civil rights violations / crimes.

 

[Craig234]

You want it fucking clear? OK.

My first thought while reading this thread is "man craig is furiously posting in here, wonder why".

After reading posts that didn't make logical sense to me (which, most times we see eye-to-eye), I thought "I bet somewhere along the line craig was influenced on this situation more than the average person. Maybe not a huge influence, but something is definitely there.".

Then you admitted to being on a jury that tried a DUI case.

Then I posted.

That's it. It wasn't meant as an attack, because ad-hom is a fallacy. And in your case, I don't think your bias on this issue is 50/50. Or 51/49 for that matter. Probably more like 60/40 or 66.6/33.3. So it's not a huge bias. But I still stand by the fact that it's there.

I have no problem up to the point where you posted claiming bias, with the jury as evidence. That was unjustified. I take it as ad hominem, but it matters that you did not mean it to be, no offense taken there.

I just need to try to help you understand that sometimes difference of opinion can appear to be bias, but isn't, and you are still not understanding this, since you still think it's 'bias'.

I've given you information that contradicts bias. What do you think any bias is based on?

I'm passionate for justice, not convicting the innocent - and for the protection of human life, the prevention of drunk driving.

You should really consider what I'm saying about the reasons why I am saying what I think justice is here, and recognize them for the opinions on justice they are, differening from yours on this, without 'bias'.

How far are we goingfto get discussing the real differences of opinion if we're talking about the phony issue of bias?

Bias does exist on both sides. ome of that bias is who you 'relate to' - if you relate more to someone who once in a while takes a short drive home after some drinking, that can be a 'bias', too.

Have you noticed, no one answer my question asked several times about the scenarios where somoene at home gets drunk and has a reasonable need to leave home and go to the parking garage and sleep in their car, without any evidence like a wife he had an argument with, versus the fact that drunk drivers often druve home drunk and fall asleep in the car rather than making it in the house?

I'm glad we usually agree. And it'll be good if we can disagree pleasantly and not have it be an unnecessarily personal escalation. We're both after the same thing, right? Neither of us wants to convict innocent people and neither of us wants drunk driving casualties. That leaves talking about the tradeoffs on these gray areas.

 

[Craig234]

Cars?

I'd like to see cops with video cameras on their foreheads and quadraphonic audio recording around their necks. They simply can't be trusted with the power they have.

Actually I've supported personal cameras too. IMO, 95% of the time they'd help the police be proven right, but that's not important - what is important is about 100% of time they'd help justice regardless.

Not to mention any benefit from deterrence.

As a group? No way do I trust them at all, ever, in any encounter, unless I specifically called them about something.

Individuals, on a case-by-case basis, maybe. Though a long track record of "good/honest/etc... service" is a PERFECT cover for one or two LARGE civil rights violations / crimes.

I share the concern about the potential for abuse; I think it's gotten a LOT better since several decades ago, and that the police rarely are doing the wrong thing, but it definitely happens.

For example, I've seen reports the police would not uncommonly have a guy suspected of child molestation have an accident out a high up window. (Cue the people here saying 'now THAT I'm for!', not you).

 

[Sinsear]

private property != public place.

Actually there have been court rulings about this. One's auto out on the street or in public is not considered private like one's house.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'm listening to you, but your argument is that he was parked outside his apartment to avoid the cold you speculate there was or sleep off being drunk before driving home. What was embarrassing again?

I asked a question you didn't answer, to supply me with the cases where, if there was a law agaist being drunk in your car with the key other than at a drinking location, the person ha a reason to get into their car drunk, and can't give the officer a reason that holds up why they did? I'd like to hear about this big need to do this that would hurt the innocent people.

You're foaming. That was my first post in this thread, so you couldn't have asked me a question that I didn't answer.

You've been given lots of very reasonable arguments as to why your position on this issue is misguided. I'll try once more.

1. Thus far there is absolutely no evidence that the guy actually drove his vehicle. Engine was cold, the key was not in the ignition, and the car wouldn't start at the impound.
2. As far as I understand from the article there is actually no law on the books about drunk driver sleeping in his car with the key not in the ignition. This judgement is a huge stretch of the original intent of the law.
3. This ruling will actually encourage drunk drivers to get behind the wheel instead of keeping them off the road.

Basically you assumed that the guy is guilty without any actual proof. The car engine was cold, nobody say him driving, and the stupid car wouldn't even start, yet, you assume that because he was in the car with the keys in the center console, he must have driven it. You built this elaborate "what if" logic chain, what if the guy drove it home, what if instead of coming up home he was so drunk that he couldn't muster enough energy to come up to his apartment and fell asleep in his car, he had enough energy to drive, but not to come up to his apartment, what if the car was outside long enough to get cold before officer got to the scene, and what if by some chance the car was actually drivable on the night of his arrest, but suddenly broke down in the impound making it look as if was broken all along. Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds? Well, what if his friends drove him there and left him in the car which would explain keys in the center console instead of his pocket? What if got drunk at home and his girlfriend kicked him out so he decided to go spend the night in the car? Well? Why do you chose to ignore hard substantial evidence of his innocence and keep maintaining that since he had keys on him in his car that he actually drove it?

You are actually assuming that he is guilty until proven innocent. You are saying that even though nobody saw him drive the vehincle and all the evidence points out otherwise, he is still guilty and it is up to him to prove that he is innocent. Even if I play along when I really shouldn't, the car does not start, how much more evidence do you need? You are LAUGHABLE. No, let me change it, you are outright DANGEROUS because instead of putting the burden of proof onto state to prove that the individual did something wrong, you're putting it on the citizen to prove that he didn't do anything wrong. WTF. How do you prove you did not go above speed limit last week Craig? I think it is reasonable to assume that since you own a car and you have keys to your car, that you drive it, and you do in fact speed. Please report to jail. You endangered lives Craig, you should be ashamed and punished appropriately.

Please read the article carefully, specifically the following line written by the judge: "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". What the judge basically saying is that Fleck could have woken up and driven it, therefore he must be convicted. He didn't say he drove it, he said he could drive it. This is not even a thought crime. This is way beyond thought crime because thought crime implies intent, and I do not see any actual evidence of the intent in this case. What the judge said is that any person who is drunk, has his keys on him and is physically in his car, he could potentially start it and drive it, therefore he is guilty. Guilty of the thing he has not even done. What the hell?

And lastly it's been pointed again and again, this judgment is likely to put more drunk drivers on the road. Let's consider the following situation. It's been a cold winter with temperatures below 10 degrees Fahrenheit here. Suppose a person who has had one too many beers is coming out of the bar. He got no designated driver, no one to call to, and doesn't have money for the cab. What is he going to do? His choices are: sleep it over in the car and hope he doesn't get arrested for the simple fact of being in his car intoxicated even with the keys not in the ignition, or he could take a chance and drive home. The latter scenario now ENCOURAGES the drunk to drive home because he has much much higher chance of getting a ticket by simply sitting in his car. If he sits in his car for several hours there is a huge chance a cop stops by and issues him a ticket, on the other hand the drive home is only 20 minutes, so... most people in his situation will chose to take a chance and drive home.

 

[Zargon]

No one's talking about convicting on thinking about a crime. I'm against that, as anyone with common sense reading my comments knows. We're talking about drunk driving and inferences of COMMITED crime.

One thing I'll say about the effect of jury duty, that's not bias but awareness, is the importance of objective evidence.

I've seen in trials the difficulty that utterly conrtradictory and unrelable eyewitness testimony causes.

In the example trial I mentioned previously - about which no one has commented yet - the police officer said the two drivers were wearing very distinctive and different street clothes so he could confirm that they had switrched places, while the defendant said that the two both had on paint splatter-covered overalls that looked the same, contributing to not knowing if they switched places How can a jury tell who is lying? How useful would a video on the plice dashboard showing the switch have been?

how is the INFERENCE of a possible commited crime, with zero actual evidence, really any different than thinking about committing a crime. Serioualy, they are both based on SHIT for actual evidence.

Thats like arresting witnesses because they were there so they 'could have been part of the crime'.

your house party is the same thing as a car. its your property you are generally held accountable for its contents and you have to prove otherwise. I wont go into the burden of proof issues with that because you obviosuly wont understand or care, and it takes forever and I am about to go to a meeting. I am not saying I agree with the laws on that type of possesion because they are flawed, and thats certainly not an excuse to roll that type of shit out to other scenarios.

Around me all cop cars have dash cams, that record all the time and only throw away 3 minute old video, so the second the cherrys light up, you have the last 3 minutes of video. I am also pro camera, because it turns out statistically that they exonerate officers more than they screw them.

You obviously have a HUGE hardon against any one who ever thought about driving after drinking, and dont value that many of our personal rights, either in this thread or others for that matter that you have posted in


For full disclosure, I got a DUI about 5 or 6 years ago. I took the standard plea, did my community service, paid thousands of dollars in fines, went to court mandated counseling, the whole nine yards. My 'friend' whom I never speak to anymore, was DD'ing my car that evening as I was out unloading from a nasty break up. He picked up a chick and left me in a bar, in a town I wasnt from nor familiar with(we were in his home town). He gave me my keys back after feeding me 10+ drinks in 2 hours. I had no idea WTF was going on and barely any recolection of any of the events.

I was anti-some of our DUI laws before, and most of my issues with what you are talking about are unrelated to the DUi situation. But how willing you are to toss away rights, due process, and the requirements of both evidence and there actually having to be a crime that was commited, so be convicting people of crimes. Its just wrong.

meeting time, gtg

 

[BoberFett]

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?

The only state to vote for Mondale over Reagan. Shut your pie hole, tard boy.

 

[daishi5]

Wow, I just read the actual court decision.

The ditch scenario is mind boggling. She was guilty of drunk driving because it was possible for her to drive the car while her son went to get help. I cannot believe we have reached the point where a person was convicted because it was possible for them to commit a crime. Or in other words, it is illegal to be near a car with the keys while drunk.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, I just read the actual court decision.

The ditch scenario is mind boggling. She was guilty of drunk driving because it was possible for her to drive the car while her son went to get help. I cannot believe we have reached the point where a person was convicted because it was possible for them to commit a crime. Or in other words, it is illegal to be near a car with the keys while drunk.

If the case is as you state, I think it was very wrong for her to be arrested for drunk driving.

 

[Craig234]

how is the INFERENCE of a possible commited crime, with zero actual evidence, really any different than thinking about committing a crime. Serioualy, they are both based on SHIT for actual evidence.

No, they are two completely different things, and the fact you say what you said suggests we're wasting our time talking, our views are so far apart.

Thats like arresting witnesses because they were there so they 'could have been part of the crime'.

No, it's not, but I get the feeling that's not the last false analogy/strawman you can come up with.

your house party is the same thing as a car. its your property you are generally held accountable for its contents and you have to prove otherwise. I wont go into the burden of proof issues with that because you obviosuly wont understand or care, and it takes forever and I am about to go to a meeting. I am not saying I agree with the laws on that type of possesion because they are flawed, and thats certainly not an excuse to roll that type of shit out to other scenarios.

Apart from the ridiculous comments you made - you are the one with an issue understanding burden - you did not understand the context of the comments. Even though they were explained a second time.

Around me all cop cars have dash cams, that record all the time and only throw away 3 minute old video, so the second the cherrys light up, you have the last 3 minutes of video. I am also pro camera, because it turns out statistically that they exonerate officers more than they screw them.

3 minutes is too short. You're for them for the reason they exonerate the officer, not because they tell the truth? We differ there - though IMO they do usually exonerate the officers.

You obviously have a HUGE hardon against any one who ever thought about driving after drinking, and dont value that many of our personal rights, either in this thread or others for that matter that you have posted in

And the 100% rate of wrongly stating my position has another addition, the opposite of my position.

A HUGE hardon is out of bound for you to bring up.

I have an objection to drunk driving and a far and just approach to stoppig it.

For full disclosure, I got a DUI about 5 or 6 years ago. I took the standard plea, did my community service, paid thousands of dollars in fines, went to court mandated counseling, the whole nine yards. My 'friend' whom I never speak to anymore, was DD'ing my car that evening as I was out unloading from a nasty break up. He picked up a chick and left me in a bar, in a town I wasnt from nor familiar with(we were in his home town). He gave me my keys back after feeding me 10+ drinks in 2 hours. I had no idea WTF was going on and barely any recolection of any of the events.

I was anti-some of our DUI laws before, and most of my issues with what you are talking about are unrelated to the DUi situation. But how willing you are to toss away rights, due process, and the requirements of both evidence and there actually having to be a crime that was commited, so be convicting people of crimes. Its just wrong.

meeting time, gtg

You made a mistake and paid for it. I don't view you and better or worse on the topic for that. You sound better than the typical drunk driver in not having been as irresponsible planning your evening.

Not that you sound like someone who was willing to drive drunk before, but did the experience leave you determined not to do it again?

The rest of your comments are straw man around your opinion I'm for convicting inocent people, and I'm very much against that.

 

[nobodyknows]

If the case is as you state, I think it was very wrong for her to be arrested for drunk driving.

That's what fucked up laws like this allow. It's like you're saying you would rather send an innocent person to jail then let someone who MIGHT be quilty get away.

 

[daishi5]

If the case is as you state, I think it was very wrong for her to be arrested for drunk driving.

Don't take my word for it, they have the actual court decision in the link in the OP. The reasoning for her guilt is that a DWI include "physical control" and they have defined physical control such that if she was able to get a tow truck and easily make the vehicle drivable, she is guilty of DUI. Even though her son testified that he had been her DD and had left to get help. But, please read it for yourself, I think this has gone way too far.

 

[Craig234]

That's what fucked up laws like this allow. It's like you're saying you would rather send an innocent person to jail then let someone who MIGHT be quilty get away.

There's an old legal saying that it's better to let a dozen guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. I've always felt the right number is higher than 12. What we have here are differences on the evidence.

 

[nobodyknows]

There's an old legal saying that it's better to let a dozen guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. I've always felt the right number is higher than 12. What we have here are differences on the evidence.

No, what you have here is police abusing the privileges/power we give them to enforce laws. Isn't there something better they could (should) be doing then picking on sleeping people?

 

[Craig234]

No, what you have here is police abusing the privileges/power we give them to enforce laws. Isn't there something better they could (should) be doing then picking on sleeping people?

No, the boat sailed long ago on the question of whether police check on people sleeping in cars in areas they patrol for a variety of reasons, and arresting drunk drivers is a good idea.

No one has yet answered what I asked on this several times.

Do you want to let drunk drivers get way with doing it, without any real issue of arresting innocents?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

That isn't the way the law is supposed to work. THEY are supposed to prove that YOU committed a crime and not the other way around. I can understand the reasonable suspicion of finding him drunk in a car but that alone should never be enough to convict someone of a felony.

And to answer your question, he doesn't need a reason but I'll bite. I think I mentioned it already but a buddy of mine did basically the same thing because him and his wife, both of whom had been drinking, started arguing. He decided that arguing with the wife while both were drunk was a bad idea and since he was drunk he couldn't go anywhere else to spend the night so he slept in his truck.

My friend made a ton of good decisions but it seems like you are advocating that he should or could be arrested and charged with DUI based solely on the fact that he was sleeping in his vehicle on private property while drunk.

So far I have seen zero proof that the man actually drove the vehicle. Don't you think they should have to prove you committed the crime in order to convict you and they should be required to have more evidence than your ability to commit a crime to charge you?

 

[Craig234]

That isn't the way the law is supposed to work. THEY are supposed to prove that YOU committed a crime and not the other way around. I can understand the reasonable suspicion of finding him drunk in a car but that alone should never be enough to convict someone of a felony.

And to answer your question, he doesn't need a reason but I'll bite. I think I mentioned it already but a buddy of mine did basically the same thing because him and his wife, both of whom had been drinking, started arguing. He decided that arguing with the wife while both were drunk was a bad idea and since he was drunk he couldn't go anywhere else to spend the night so he slept in his truck.

My friend made a ton of good decisions but it seems like you are advocating that he should or could be arrested and charged with DUI based solely on the fact that he was sleeping in his vehicle on private property while drunk.

So far I have seen zero proof that the man actually drove the vehicle. Don't you think they should have to prove you committed the crime in order to convict you and they should be required to have more evidence than your ability to commit a crime to charge you?

Your friend had a reason - and one conversation with the wife would confirm it. He would not be arrested.

Look, here's a good analogy for those who are arguing against circumstancial evidence short of a big discussion.

Society determined that drinking alcohol while driving is unsafe and should not be allowed.

Now, apart from the issue that you could take a fifth of vodka, have one small drink before starting the car and be nowhere near drunk, and could argue what's the harm?

(In Louisiana, they had drive thrugh bard serving 'go cups' of alcoholic drinks, but they're another story).

Even having the open bottle on the passenger seaqt and drinking NOTHING is illegal.

Now why is that? I din't see any posters demanding reform of that law.

The fact is, having determined it's unsafe, with the difficulty of enforcement - 'have you taken a drink from that open botte?' - they said screwt it. Having it is illegal.

Now, you may have done NOTHING WRONG regaqrding the underlying crime why it's illeal. You take an open bottlewith you in the care, drive to a friend's to drink it.

But they made it a crime because the tradeoff between the problem of people who would drink driving, versus the inconvenience, came down in favor of not allowing it.

Do the people who keep arguing you have to prove every actual element and you are not allowed to ban behavior that's very heavily weighted for drunk drivers care to post demanding that not only are open containers now allwed, but drinking from them is allowed as welll as long as you can drink a coke, as ong as you stay under the limit?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

The current laws on the books are just fine unfortunately they are not enforced very well. Case in point, this guy had multiple DUI convictions and was free and (i assume) had a drivers license.

Do you really see a need to make the law so vague that there is a high probability of innocent people being wrongfully convicted? How many wrongful convictions is it worth to prevent 1 DUI? 100? 1000?

 

[daishi5]

The current laws on the books are just fine unfortunately they are not enforced very well. Case in point, this guy had multiple DUI convictions and was free and (i assume) had a drivers license.

Do you really see a need to make the law so vague that there is a high probability of innocent people being wrongfully convicted? How many wrongful convictions is it worth to prevent 1 DUI? 100? 1000?

You might be missing a few things on the current law, in Minnesota it is apparently illegal to be drunk while in a car that you have the keys to if you can easily make it capable of driving (calling a tow truck is not enough to not be easy). From what I read in the court decision, if you are in physical control, which they say they intentionally make as vague as possible, you can get a DUI. For them, physical control includes the ability to choose to operate the vehicle. They convicted a woman based on the fact that she could have called a tow truck to get it out of the ditch and then driven the vehicle. They did not convict her because they thought she had driven it, the son testified he had been the one driving when he lost control and entered the ditch. She was guilty because he was not there, she had the keys, and she could have called a tow truck to get it out of the ditch and then driven it.

I can only assume that being able to walk out to your car is less trouble then calling a tow truck, so it seems to me that any one who is drunk at home should be arrested on DUI charges, and any person in a bar as well.

I know it seems dumb, but if a person is in physical control when they need a tow truck to get the car moving, I don't see how you can say that being able to start it just by walking outside is in less physical control.

But, the fact that the car doesn't start still matters, because if the man could not fix it, and could not call someone to fix it, it does not seem like he was in physical control.

My god, I really hope this turns out to be some hoax by the onion that i fell for.