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

[Craig234]

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.

Perhaps. Our poster who got a DUI and paid thousands might disagree. But it's another issue.

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?

No, you don't. We disagree on the risk to innocents. As far as that number - for me, perhaps 1000+.

On the other hand, only one person has responded, disagreeing, to my idea that's a hell of a lot better than convictng drunk drivers - preventing them with universal car breath testers.

 

[daishi5]

Perhaps. Our poster who got a DUI and paid thousands might disagree. But it's another issue.



No, you don't. We disagree on the risk to innocents. As far as that number - for me, perhaps 1000+.

On the other hand, only one person has responded, disagreeing, to my idea that's a hell of a lot better than convictng drunk drivers - preventing them with universal car breath testers.

I am trying hard to think of a reasonable comparison where we require citizens to prove they are not breaking the law before we allow them to do something. I don't like the idea at all, because it works from a presumption of guilt and then requires proof of innocence. (You might be drunk, so you can't drive till you prove you are not drunk.) But, I don't know that I can come up with anything other than my freedom/security balance doesn't tip that far in favor of security.

 

[alphatarget1]

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.

QFT + BFT. Craig, you should move to China.

 

[nobodyknows]

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?

Quit being intentionally obtuse. Sleeping people are NOT DRIVING THEIR CARS. DUHHH!!

Heck, back when I was a kid the legal limit for blood alcohol contentl was twice as high as it is now. Now the nitwits don't even want you to be able to sleep it off in y9ur car because you MIGHT drive? That's mot justice, that's insanity.

 

[Craig234]

QFT + BFT. Craig, you should move to China.

Wrong. Perhaps you should.

 

[alphatarget1]

Wrong. Perhaps you should.

You believe in the absolute power of the State. You believe that government officials can do no wrong. To quote the guy I just quoted: You are dangerous. Your beliefs trample on the very legal foundation on which this country was built upon.

Let me rephrase- you're more like a Nazi.

 

[Craig234]

I am trying hard to think of a reasonable comparison where we require citizens to prove they are not breaking the law before we allow them to do something. I don't like the idea at all, because it works from a presumption of guilt and then requires proof of innocence. (You might be drunk, so you can't drive till you prove you are not drunk.) But, I don't know that I can come up with anything other than my freedom/security balance doesn't tip that far in favor of security.

It doesn't 'presume you are guilty'. Don't whore ot a phrase like that that describes things like unjustly imprisoning people for the precaution of blowing in a tube.

How about having to past a driving test to get your licens - doesn't that 'presume you are guilty of not being a good enough driver' and force you to prove to the government you are?

 

[Craig234]

You believe in the absolute power of the State. You believe that government officials can do no wrong. To quote the guy I just quoted: You are dangerous. Your beliefs trample on the very legal foundation on which this country was built upon.

Let me rephrase- you're more like a Nazi.

And the right - the idiot right in this case - continues the 100% rate of lying about my position, adding more lies.

 

[kalrith]

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.

Same here. If someone actually commits a DUI, then they need to inflict harsher penalties. However, they need to stop this woulda-coulda kind of conviction. If I were in a store looking at some item to steal and thinking about doing it, I shouldn't be convicted of a crime. Now, if he drove to a friends house while drunk and they could prove that, then by all means throw the book at him. Last time I checked sleeping in a car doesn't kill people.

 

[BoberFett]

I just want to say how great it is to see everbody, left and right, come together to tell Craig what a piece of shit he is.

It warms my heart.

 

[Red Dawn]

I just want to say how great it is to see everbody, left and right, come together to tell Craig what a piece of shit he is.

It warms my heart.

Well a knucklehead is still a knucklehead no matter what side of the fence he passes out on.

 

[exar333]

Seriously. If you are drunk, behind the wheel, AND the car is moving, then a DUI is appropriate.

Does anyone posting here know what a DUI means? DRIVING under the influence.

Courts are f'd up to consider anything else a DUI. Hello police state...

 

[Craig234]

Same here. If someone actually commits a DUI, then they need to inflict harsher penalties. However, they need to stop this woulda-coulda kind of conviction. If I were in a store looking at some item to steal and thinking about doing it, I shouldn't be convicted of a crime. Now, if he drove to a friends house while drunk and they could prove that, then by all means throw the book at him. Last time I checked sleeping in a car doesn't kill people.

If a police officer sees you walking out of the store, pull a bottle of booze out from your jacket, brand new with the store's price tag still on it, the clerk says you didn't buy it, and your story is that you bought it a week ago and paid cash and don't have a recript and just happened to be carrying it in your coat when you went in and out of the store, there's no proof you stole it. Your story might e right. But you are very likely going to be arrested for shoplifting because of the odds. Do you disagree with that? Or are you inconsistent and dont really stand by the 'you have to have PROOF (no pun on the booze)' standard?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If a police officer sees you walking out of the store, pull a bottle of booze out from your jacket, brand new with the store's price tag still on it, the clerk says you didn't buy it, and your story is that you bought it a week ago and paid cash and don't have a recript and just happened to be carrying it in your coat when you went in and out of the store, there's no proof you stole it. Your story might e right. But you are very likely going to be arrested for shoplifting because of the odds. Do you disagree with that? Or are you inconsistent and dont really stand by the 'you have to have PROOF (no pun on the booze)' standard?

No he won't be arrested, because the argument will be that the clerk may not have been on duty another time when it might have been purchased. This happens all the time, and unless someone sees it taken, then nothing happens.

 

[daishi5]

It doesn't 'presume you are guilty'. Don't whore ot a phrase like that that describes things like unjustly imprisoning people for the precaution of blowing in a tube.

How about having to past a driving test to get your licens - doesn't that 'presume you are guilty of not being a good enough driver' and force you to prove to the government you are?

You are reacting too much to your own bias regarding the "presumes guilt" phrase and not enough to what I said. The system does presume guilt, it is put in the cars of DUI offenders on the assumption, or presumption that they will try to do it again. They require the offender to continually prove his innocence before he operates his vehicle. If the driver cannot prove his innocence, whether because of intoxication or failure of the analyzer itself, the driver cannot start the car because he is assumed to be intoxicated.

But, you missed the reason I don't support this idea. I don't like the state restricting my freedoms just to get more safety, and I don't feel this meets the level of increased safety for loss of freedom necessary for me to accept it.

 

[daishi5]

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

Wow, I can't believe I missed this. The man in the OP was convicted based on the exact same criteria that the woman was convicted upon.

That criteria was, they were drunk, they were in proximity to the controls of the car, and both of them could with a small amount of effort operate the vehicle. These two people were both convicted of a DUI based upon the law that declares them guilty if they could drive the car even with no evidence that they did drive the car. This law makes it illegal to be able to drive under the influence.

So let me ask this question clearly. Do you believe a anyone should be convicted of a DUI because it was possible for him or her to drive the vehicle, even when there is no evidence that he or she did in fact drive the vehicle.?

 

[Craig234]

You are reacting too much to your own bias regarding the "presumes guilt" phrase and not enough to what I said. The system does presume guilt, it is put in the cars of DUI offenders on the assumption, or presumption that they will try to do it again. They require the offender to continually prove his innocence before he operates his vehicle. If the driver cannot prove his innocence, whether because of intoxication or failure of the analyzer itself, the driver cannot start the car because he is assumed to be intoxicated.

But, you missed the reason I don't support this idea. I don't like the state restricting my freedoms just to get more safety, and I don't feel this meets the level of increased safety for loss of freedom necessary for me to accept it.

Well, I think you're the one making the issue about 'presumes guilt'. It doesn't. You didn't respond to my analogy of the test to get a license.

Sometimes states also change the standards for how often someone has to retake the test to renew their license. No tickets = automatic renewal, tickets = retake the test.

This isn't presuming guilt either, it's prioritizing based on risk, just as the breathalyzers for DUI convicts does.

If they wanted in increase traffic safety they might require everyone to retake the test. If they want to greatly reduce drunk driving they might require everyone to breath in a tube to drive.

So, it doesn't meet your threshhold that you care enough about the people killed by drunk driving.

It would be effective, and not put innocent people in jail, which is what I mentioned.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, I can't believe I missed this. The man in the OP was convicted based on the exact same criteria that the woman was convicted upon.

That criteria was, they were drunk, they were in proximity to the controls of the car, and both of them could with a small amount of effort operate the vehicle. These two people were both convicted of a DUI based upon the law that declares them guilty if they could drive the car even with no evidence that they did drive the car. This law makes it illegal to be able to drive under the influence.

So let me ask this question clearly. Do you believe a anyone should be convicted of a DUI because it was possible for him or her to drive the vehicle, even when there is no evidence that he or she did in fact drive the vehicle.?

No, it wasn't even close to the same. Her son looking for help saying he was the one driving is quite different than the man drunk asleep in his car at his home.

The answer to your question has already been posted. I can see an argument for making it a crime to get behind the sheel of a vehicle drunk you can drive, with exceptions, such as evidence like you did not drive such as the son above, or at the location of a drinking venue. It's a minimal issue for peplel not to get behind the wheel drunk in a community parking lot at home compared to reducing drunk driving.

You also did not say anything about the 'open container' post above, which also includes making something illegal that has minimal impact on rights in exchange for reducing drunk driving.

 

[cubby1223]

QFT + BFT. Craig, you should move to China.

It's Venezuela he always threatens to move to

 

[Craig234]

It's Venezuela he always threatens to move to

Cubby lies about what I say again. 100% rate contnues with another example added.

 

[cubby1223]

On the other hand, only one person has responded, disagreeing, to my idea that's a hell of a lot better than convictng drunk drivers - preventing them with universal car breath testers.

Well let me be another to respond to your craptastic idea.

Let's put id readers in cars to make sure the driver has a license, that he has to scan before starting the car. Insurance and registration too.

But then there is the loophole for a mentally deficient person to be behind the wheel, so let's install aptitude tests before starting the car.

Let's also make the driver prick his finger, and have blood tests run to make sure there are no drugs in the driver's body.

Hell, let's just go ahead and wrap all drivers in protective bubble-wrap to help minimize the impact of collisions!


Or we could recognize that breathalysers can be bypassed - that's why cars with them installed force the driver to retake the breathalyser in time intervals else the car engine shuts off. So what have we gained for the expenses and the time consumed?

 

[Craig234]

Well let me be another to respond to your craptastic idea.

Let's put id readers in cars to make sure the driver has a license, that he has to scan before starting the car. Insurance and registration too.

But then there is the loophole for a mentally deficient person to be behind the wheel, so let's install aptitude tests before starting the car.

Let's also make the driver prick his finger, and have blood tests run to make sure there are no drugs in the driver's body.

Hell, let's just go ahead and wrap all drivers in protective bubble-wrap to help minimize the impact of collisions!


Or we could recognize that breathalysers can be bypassed - that's why cars with them installed force the driver to retake the breathalyser in time intervals else the car engine shuts off. So what have we gained for the expenses and the time consumed?

No, I'm not going to count that as a response. Your cat just walked on your keyboard.

 

[Darwin333]

Perhaps. Our poster who got a DUI and paid thousands might disagree. But it's another issue.



No, you don't. We disagree on the risk to innocents. As far as that number - for me, perhaps 1000+.

On the other hand, only one person has responded, disagreeing, to my idea that's a hell of a lot better than convictng drunk drivers - preventing them with universal car breath testers.

I am not so quick to convict an innocent man and vague laws such as you have proposed and your argument in support of this case wind up convicting innocent people. So 1 out of 1000 convictions being wrong is acceptable to you? I am sure you realize this but we jail more people than any other country so the sheer number of innocent people in jail that you find acceptable I find appalling. Even worse, we aren't any safer for all these bullshit antics. Do you really think that this law will make you any safer? The law doesn't make you any safer it simply makes it easier to convict someone who may or may not have broken the law but that should make us at least a little safer, right? Nope, the assholes caught are still on the road today. So you put some innocent folk through hell for what gain?

As far as universal car breathalyzers, not quite sure I like that idea either but you would at least be on more ethical ground to make the argument. I do think they should mandate anyone convicted of DUI to have a breathalyzer installed in their vehicle in order to be abler to drive again but to mandate it across the board? It would take a decade or more just to implement it and while its not a punishment per se, again I err on the side of not screwing with the good folk because of a few bad folk. If we are going to go that route why not install GPS's at the same time to help police know your whereabouts in case you are ever suspected of a crime at some point in the future? Hell, we are making them pretty small these days maybe in a few years we can just get it over with and have them implanted at birth? All so you can "feel" a little safer while not actually being any safer.

And for the record, a single innocent man convicted of a crime he did not commit based on so little evidence is an utter travesty in my book. Completely unacceptable.

 

[Zargon]

It would be effective, and not put innocent people in jail, which is what I mentioned.

too bad the country was not founded on god given rights, as soon as you prove you are following the rules.

its founded on god given rights until the state/fed proves you messed up and dont deserve them.

you claim I am strawmanning everything you say, but perhaps its you, since most people seem to think YOU have the distorted view of reality.

You have repeatedly said you want to the put the burden of proof in situations on the accussed and not the accuser.

You missrepresenting many other laws, like your shoplifting example. In fact, with no proof that someone took it, guess what, they are going to walk.

You again distort reality that by being pro burdern of proof we are not pro-rights, but are pro-drunk driving, which is rediculous. We are not with you so we are for drunk drivers getting off is just not correct.

Didnt the fiasco's involved with DNA exhonerations teach us anything about burden of proof and assuming guilt? seriously.


as for darwins post about DUI laws having to be stricter. not really.

you simply(and you need to realize this craig) cannot 'stop drunk drivers' from doing it.

my father in law is a worthless douche with 4 DUI convictions and a ton of driving on suspended/revoked license convictions.

You still cant keep him from driving without jailing him. And no one is going to pay to jail his ass(obviously). They jack up the fines, but most of these multiple DUI people are broke as fuck(trust me, I was in traffic court ALOT). How is the state going to get 20K fine from a guy who cant keep an 8 buck an hour job because he is supposed to drive and isnt going to stay sober anyways.

By the time I got done with my stuff, between court costs(which are retarded high, seriously like a few hundred an hour for how long I was there), the community service which often kept me from working thus losing income, and the fines. I was out almost 5 figures. If that isnt going to stop someone, not much is.

Not to mention, its hard to stop because its an altered state of conciousness, right?

Unless you do what craig wants, and breathelize EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.


great, so we give that up that huge infringement on the govt(nto to mention, when they break no one can drive anywhere, thanks uncle sam!).

whats next then. because they wont stop. they will come after another right next. Its already started. Obama extended all the grittiest rights infringing parts of the Patriot Act, so thats never going away.

You mention LA having open container, which I'm sorry but thats awesome. They dont have the most # of DUI arrests per year, let alone the highest percentage. ALot of other states with less people have more dui arrests reported. So obvously having open container doesnt make everyone drunk drive. So thats probably a bad example to use for your argument.

I would bet that illegal aliens driving and causing accidents causes far more problems than DUIs, but we arent cracking down on that, and most of them get away scottfree due to fake id's and no way to track them down.

 

[daishi5]

No, it wasn't even close to the same. Her son looking for help saying he was the one driving is quite different than the man drunk asleep in his car at his home.

It was the same, because the court used the same criteria to determine guilt. I.E. he was in proximity to the controls of the vehicle, and he could have driven the car with minimal effort. They convicted him because he was close to the steering wheel and could drive the car with minimal effort, read the court opinion, it is in the OP link. The woman was just as guilty as he was, they were both within close proximity, and both could drive the vehicle. Please stop going by "he probably drove" argument. The court convicted him on physical control, which only requires him to be able to start the car, not even the court thinks he drove the car. I feel like I am repeating myself, but I need to say it clearly, the man was not convicted for driving drunk but for being able to drive drunk.

The answer to your question has already been posted. I can see an argument for making it a crime to get behind the sheel of a vehicle drunk you can drive, with exceptions, such as evidence like you did not drive such as the son above, or at the location of a drinking venue. It's a minimal issue for peplel not to get behind the wheel drunk in a community parking lot at home compared to reducing drunk driving.

This is a minor detail, but important, he did not have to be behind the wheel to be convicted in this case. He would have been just as guilty in the passenger seat. I believe the police would be correct in arresting a man in this case because there is a good reason to suspect he was driving drunk. But, it should not have been a conviction because there was absolutely no evidence that he did drive. I do not believe it should be illegal to be near a car while drunk. This law was changed to prevent a man who was drinking and has an accident from switching seats in the car and claiming the driver left. Now it is being used to convict people who were capable of drunk driving, and to me that is a huge problem that we are convicting purely on ability to commit a crime.

You also did not say anything about the 'open container' post above, which also includes making something illegal that has minimal impact on rights in exchange for reducing drunk driving.

The open container law is a part of the no drinking and driving law. I do not agree with it fully, but I understand that it is very hard to prove a man was drinking from a container in a car. While it is very easy to determine if a container in a car is open. I don't like it in theory, but I am willing to accept it in practice because actually catching someone drinking while they are driving is impractical.

answers in bold in post.

Also, selected text from the court opinion.

Fleck appealed his convictions and, relying on State v. Pazderski, 352 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. App. 1984), argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of being in physical control of a motor vehicle when he was sleeping in his vehicle, which was parked in an assigned residential parking spot with the driver’s door open, keys in the center console, no devices of the vehicle in operation, and the vehicle had not recently been operated.
...
Thus, a person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle. Id. We have held that “physical control” should be given “the broadest possible effect.” State v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Minn. 1981) (holding that the statute was amended to modify the requirement that a driver be in “actual physical control” by deleting the word “actual” so that the statute be given the broadest possible effect).
...
Although the facts of this case are not those of the typical physical control case in which a jury can infer that the defendant was in physical control because he drove the vehicle to where it came to rest, a jury could reasonably find that Fleck, having been found intoxicated, alone, and sleeping behind the wheel of his own vehicle with the keys in the vehicle’s console, was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle and that he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger.

The last paragraph is important, they found him guilty because he could make the vehicle dangerous. Craig, you are usually better than this, the state just convicted a man because he could have driven drunk. Even the court states that the Jury cannot infer that he drove the vehicle.