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

[Cattlegod]

Looks like it is better to drive home drunk and risk it so you can fall asleep in bed rather than sleeping it off behind the wheel.

 

[Darwin333]

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 point was more along the lines of "punish the guilty not the innocent". I really don't give a shit if a convicted drunk driver (convicted of actually driving drunk, not simply having the ability) has stiffer penalties put on them after the first offense. As far as the expense of jailing people, we really don't care about that either as a nation. I damn sure wouldn't say that the US is the most dangerous country in the world but we sure do have a lot of people in prison for lesser crimes.

You do touch on another point that I think is very important in the discussion though, laws are not very good at preventing crimes. They, and law enforcement in general, is reactionary. They react AFTER a crime has been committed and set punishment for that criminal offense. That is one, of many, reasons this law will not prevent drunk driving. OTOH, it will make felons out of innocent people. Absoultely no gain with a ton of negative and yet many still think its a good idea.

The sad part is this is an overall trend in the justice system. I promise you Craig, eventually this "gray area" will get to something you do care about. What I don't think you realize is that you are helping them get there. All in the name of feeling a little bit safer while not actually being any safer. Is that truly worth it to you?

Look at it this way, if I am wrong we can easily give the government more power whenever we want. If I am right, do you really think we can so easily take the power away from them in todays world?

 

[kalrith]

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?

I totally agree with the interpretation of the DUI law that allows them to charge someone drunk in a ditch behind the wheel of the car. However, if you're at your place of residence and sleeping in a car that not only has a cold engine but won't start, then that's a bit of a stretch.

I don't disagree with your story, but I don't think it's the same as this situation.

 

[nobodyknows]

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?

Was he sleepwalking?

 

[Nebor]

Sleeping in a car is not probable cause for an investigation. I've had the police knock on my window while I was sleeping in the car. I opened my eyes, squinted, glared, and went back to sleep. What are they going to do, knock my window out because I'm asleep?

 

[werepossum]

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

This. A drunk thinks "I'm drunk. I have nowhere to go but my car. If I sleep it off here, a cop will surely come see why my car is here so long and I'll get a DUI. So the logical thing to do is to drive myself to a place of safety."

Of course, the logical thing to do would be to call a cab, but I doubt Mr. Alcohol would suggest that, and at the "sleeping it off in the car" stage he's the only one making suggestions. I would imagine that, being home, this guy entered the car intending to drive somewhere, probably to buy beer, and either passed out or could not start the car. Quite possibly he ran the thing out of gas. I can remember as a college student seeing a neighbor sitting in his idling car one morning when I left for an 8AM class, and when I returned he was still there, still idling, well after noon. (Kind of freaked me out, I thought he was dead, but when I checked he was just dog drunk.) The police should have at least tried the car at the time, as weeks later there's no way of knowing if the car was operable. Although with three priors I have no sympathy, I don't like the precedent.

Oddly enough, in high school (back when the cops recommended you pull over and sleep it off) we had a mandatory DUI lecture from a couple of officers. After their talk the lady gave an oral quiz, the class would answer each statement true or false, and she'd tell us the correct answer. One of the questions was "You can only be convicted of DUI if you are in the car and the key is in the ignition." The answer was "true", the explanation being that therefore you should pull over, take the keys out of the ignition, and sleep it off. A couple questions later she said "You can be convicted of DUI even if you are not drinking and are not in the car at the time." This answer was also "true", because if you loan your car to someone who is arrested for driving drunk, you too can be charged with DUI. I got kind of agitated and told her those statements can't both be true, as they are mutually exclusive. She became confused, consulted her sheet of statements, and assured me they were both true. I explained to her why logically they could not both be true. She became more confused, consulted her sheet of statements again, and assured me again that they were both true. Then the uniform with her assured me they were both true. Then my teacher assured me they were both true. At that point I gave up.

 

[Craig234]

answers in bold in post.

Also, selected text from the court opinion.



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.

I can't read the .pdf, but I have seen the statue and other info in posts on sites lke The Smoking Dope (on which about half the people seemed to support the conviction).

There are a couple of issues. One is the 'what's the right law' issue, and another is the fact that the law does define DUI as both driving and 'being in physical control of a vehicle'.

I'm more interested in what the law should be, and I've laid out the laws that I think make sense, balancing the need between prohibiting drunk driving and not excessively infringing on rights.

My opinion is somewhat more lenient than the law in Minnesota it seems, for example, they list no exemption for 'sleeping it off' in your car at the bar.

Both seem to allow for affirmitive defenses that the person did not drive the car while intoxicated.

The facts in this case don't seem to have been clearly listed. A resident saw the man's car with the door open and the lights on parked, and called the police to investigate. They found the man asleep in the car with a number of empty beer cans in the car. THe man gave them at least a couple conflicting explanations for why he was in the car drunk, none of which made sense. One was that he'd 'just come down to the car to get an item and fell asleep' (and could show no item). Another was that he'd left his air conditioned apartment because he just felt like sitting in his car (drunk).

Now, what's a reasonable inference here? How well do the facts fit with his having driven home, drinkng and so drunk that while he parked, he passed out after opening the door, the lights still on, beer cans still sitting next to him? Is there any other "reasonable" scenario for the facts listed? On the 'not drivable', first, he thought the cdar was frivable, and told the officers that; it probably WAS, if it was a disabled car, it'd be likely he'd know that; and the 'wouldn't start' was threee weeks later without being driven, like the battery was run down for all we know.

When we get into the specifics this much, the broader issue is easy to forget, to cover all the possible variations.

In short the law does include choosing to be in control of a motor vehicle while drunk a crime, because that's where they draw the line between protecting legitimate freedoms and the practicality to enforcing drunk driving - which I think should err more towards not convicting the innocent. Some here are arguing against a more extreme and made up standard - that I don't support and isn't the law.

They talk about 'thought crime' - hardly. If you are sitting at your home, drunk, the car keys in your pocket, the car outside, and you have a 'thought crime' of drunk driving, you are complaining that's unfair to convict you, but no one is suggesting you shoule be and no law says you could be, even though you 'could easily do so'. So much for the 'possible' hyperbole.

Sometimes the law does go too far. We've had some scnearios listed where it did, like the woman whose son was getting help. IMO this one seems reasonable. By the way, all twelve jurors agreed.

 

[Craig234]

I totally agree with the interpretation of the DUI law that allows them to charge someone drunk in a ditch behind the wheel of the car. However, if you're at your place of residence and sleeping in a car that not only has a cold engine but won't start, then that's a bit of a stretch.

I don't disagree with your story, but I don't think it's the same as this situation.

What is the plausible reason he's passed out drunk in his car at his house for which there's no affirmative defense why?

THe law prohibitng that no more impinges on legitimate freedoms - even less really - than not letting you take a half a bottle of booze to your friend's house next to you.

Add in this case the car lights being on, and his conflicting, implausible explanations, and the empty beer cans sitting next to him.

The cold engine is easily explained, he'd been there passed out a long time. THe factit was at his residence is suggestive he WAS drunk driving.

The most plausible scenario by faris he drove home drunk and passed out. The less plausible scenario is he was drunk and headed out of the house to drive and passed out. Both are and should be crimes IMO.

The lights on and beer cans strengthen that he had drivem home drunk.

Note, despite the common sense nature of alcoholics' pattern of behavior, Im not relying on his prevous convictions.

I dont see other plausible scenarios for whic there wouldn't be some evidence, and none have been sugested when asked for.

 

[ebaycj]

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?

Arrested, MAYBE. Convicted, no.

 

[daishi5]

I can't read the .pdf, but I have seen the statue and other info in posts on sites lke The Smoking Dope (on which about half the people seemed to support the conviction).

There are a couple of issues. One is the 'what's the right law' issue, and another is the fact that the law does define DUI as both driving and 'being in physical control of a vehicle'.

I'm more interested in what the law should be, and I've laid out the laws that I think make sense, balancing the need between prohibiting drunk driving and not excessively infringing on rights.

My opinion is somewhat more lenient than the law in Minnesota it seems, for example, they list no exemption for 'sleeping it off' in your car at the bar.

Both seem to allow for affirmitive defenses that the person did not drive the car while intoxicated.

The facts in this case don't seem to have been clearly listed. A resident saw the man's car with the door open and the lights on parked, and called the police to investigate. They found the man asleep in the car with a number of empty beer cans in the car. THe man gave them at least a couple conflicting explanations for why he was in the car drunk, none of which made sense. One was that he'd 'just come down to the car to get an item and fell asleep' (and could show no item). Another was that he'd left his air conditioned apartment because he just felt like sitting in his car (drunk).

Now, what's a reasonable inference here? How well do the facts fit with his having driven home, drinkng and so drunk that while he parked, he passed out after opening the door, the lights still on, beer cans still sitting next to him? Is there any other "reasonable" scenario for the facts listed? On the 'not drivable', first, he thought the cdar was frivable, and told the officers that; it probably WAS, if it was a disabled car, it'd be likely he'd know that; and the 'wouldn't start' was threee weeks later without being driven, like the battery was run down for all we know.

When we get into the specifics this much, the broader issue is easy to forget, to cover all the possible variations.

In short the law does include choosing to be in control of a motor vehicle while drunk a crime, because that's where they draw the line between protecting legitimate freedoms and the practicality to enforcing drunk driving - which I think should err more towards not convicting the innocent. Some here are arguing against a more extreme and made up standard - that I don't support and isn't the law.

They talk about 'thought crime' - hardly. If you are sitting at your home, drunk, the car keys in your pocket, the car outside, and you have a 'thought crime' of drunk driving, you are complaining that's unfair to convict you, but no one is suggesting you shoule be and no law says you could be, even though you 'could easily do so'. So much for the 'possible' hyperbole.

Sometimes the law does go too far. We've had some scnearios listed where it did, like the woman whose son was getting help. IMO this one seems reasonable. By the way, all twelve jurors agreed.

Your on a ps3 so you can't read the PDF, but please read the parts I quoted. Two important points, A, this is not a case where the jury can infer that the defendant drove the car, the judges clearly state this. B. However, even though he could not be proven or inferred to have driven the vehicle, he was guilty of a DUI because "he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger." The operative word in this statement is could. The court states that it cannot be inferred or proven that he drove the car, even the police did not believe the car had been driven. This is not even a thought crime, in a thought crime they at least are convicting you of intent, they are convicting him of driving drunk when they do not believe the vehicle in question was ever driven on the night of the incident.

 

[ebaycj]

Another wrinkle: Does this also mean that if I leave my 14-year-old in the car for a minute or two while I run into a store to grab some milk, with the engine running, because it's -10F outside, that he can be convicted of driving without a license while I'm inside?

 

[Craig234]

Your on a ps3 so you can't read the PDF, but please read the parts I quoted. Two important points, A, this is not a case where the jury can infer that the defendant drove the car, the judges clearly state this.

What I saw him say what this is not the typical evidence that lets them infer it, butI did not see him say, and I don't think he should say, that they are iunable to infer that. It's just 'unusual' evidence.

There's plenty of reason to infer it. Not to a certainty - but there's that 'open container' logic again, where you can't prove the drive was drinking it, much less enough to get drunk, but it's still illegal.

That's because the tradeoffs of limiting your freedom taking the open bottle versus the public safety is heavily weightedfor safety, as it is here, which is why the status includes 'control of the car'.

B. However, even though he could not be proven or inferred to have driven the vehicle, he was guilty of a DUI because "he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger." The operative word in this statement is could. The court states that it cannot be inferred or proven that he drove the car, even the police did not believe the car had been driven. This is not even a thought crime, in a thought crime they at least are convicting you of intent, they are convicting him of driving drunk when they do not believe the vehicle in question was ever driven on the night of the incident.

This is a little tricky. It's one question to ask "is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt he drove drunk". It's another question to ask, is a drunk sleeping in a car without an affirmative defense at such high risk of having driven drunk, from the inferences of his being drunk in control of the vehicle, that the tradeoff of the freedom to get drunk and go sleep in your car versus the public safety from drunken driving, weighs so heavily for safety that it's justified to criminalize the act of getting drunk and then getting in control of a vehicle".

And fot the latter there are two issues - our opinions of what's right and the fact that the state did it.

What I was saying is that the inferences from his situation are so strong of his having driven drunk that the act of his choosing to get in his car drunk at home like that makes sense to criminalize for the need to reduce drunken driving - no one has yet offered any scenarios where this would happen, without evidence justifying it, as to why the freedom side is large and justified not crimiinalizing it.

That's what the legislature did, and there's no real doubt it seems to me that he broke the law of being drunk in control of the vehicle that apparently had been drivable to that point and he said was drivable.

It seems to me this is one of those stories where a fact is misrepresented to hype the story - 3 weeks later the car didn't start, for a dead battery for all we know, ]and the headline becomes 'man arrested for drunk driving in a car that won't run!' Very nice for getting lots of read reaction, ohmigosh isn't that outrageos, but sorry, the car not running doesn't seem to carry any weight.

 

[Craig234]

Another wrinkle: Does this also mean that if I leave my 14-year-old in the car for a minute or two while I run into a store to grab some milk, with the engine running, because it's -10F outside, that he can be convicted of driving without a license while I'm inside?

No. Same if you leave a drunk adult passenger.

 

[kalrith]

What is the plausible reason he's passed out drunk in his car at his house for which there's no affirmative defense why?

He went to grab something out of his car and passed out. I think that's a plausible reason. I forget stuff in my car all the time and go out to get it. I also need these things called keys to get into the car even though I'm not going to use said keys to drive the car.

 

[Craig234]

He went to grab something out of his car and passed out. I think that's a plausible reason. I forget stuff in my car all the time and go out to get it. I also need these things called keys to get into the car even though I'm not going to use said keys to drive the car.

Not so plausible when they asked him what item and he had none, and contradicted his own story.

It's not that big a rule: if you get drunk, don't go get in your car and fall asleep. With the lights on.

In the real world, if you are drunk and want something from the car, and you can't wait, and you can't get someone to get if for you, the seconds you spend to go get the item aren't going to get you arrested.

It's a small price to pay for the benefits, as is not driving with an open container. Your car is off limits while drunk, if it's parked in a public area the police might patrol.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I think it should be law that you have to say Minnesota with a funny Canadian accent.

Minne-SO-ta, eh?

 

[Zargon]

Not so plausible when they asked him what item and he had none, and contradicted his own story.

It's not that big a rule: if you get drunk, don't go get in your car and fall asleep. With the lights on.

In the real world, if you are drunk and want something from the car, and you can't wait, and you can't get someone to get if for you, the seconds you spend to go get the item aren't going to get you arrested.

It's a small price to pay for the benefits, as is not driving with an open container. Your car is off limits while drunk, if it's parked in a public area the police might patrol.

like I mentioned before, the neighboring states around LA, dont have open container, have more DUI arrests per citizen. Please stop using open container as an example of laws that prevent DUI's till you have evidence to prove it.

http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/duiarrest.asp

while the # of arrests isnt a best indicator its all we have.


I'm sorry but even if he went in there to drive, he didnt drive. so he shouldnt get arrested for driving under the influence

 

[nobodyknows]

Your car is off limits while drunk, if it's parked in a public area the police might patrol.

My car is an extension of my house. With your kind of thinking it won't be long before I could be arrested for being drunk in my house because the car is available to me and I have the keys in my pocket.

The problem with you is that you can't consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

 

[Craig234]

like I mentioned before, the neighboring states around LA, dont have open container, have more DUI arrests per citizen. Please stop using open container as an example of laws that prevent DUI's till you have evidence to prove it.

http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/duiarrest.asp

No, because I'm not using it for that. I'm using it for other things, its use as an example of a law we accept as *believing to be* with a safety benefit without direct evidence of the underlying crime.

while the # of arrests isnt a best indicator its all we have.


I'm sorry but even if he went in there to drive, he didnt drive. so he shouldnt get arrested for driving under the influence

You can say drinving with all the bolding and italics you like, but because of the reasons stated, the actual statue specifically prohibtis being in control of the vehicle as well. It's not only driving for a good reason.

 

[Zargon]

1. No, because I'm not using it for that. I'm using it for other things, its use as an example of a law we accept as *believing to be* with a safety benefit without direct evidence of the underlying crime.



2. You can say drinving with all the bolding and italics you like, but because of the reasons stated, the actual statue specifically prohibtis being in control of the vehicle as well. It's not only driving for a good reason.

1. great. I am also saying that open container laws are another example of BS laws that solve basically no problems. People are OK with it because its been on the books for so long. You can beat people hollered when it was taken away. Things like this are just a further step stupid laws like that got us started on this slope of pissing away rights for zero safety

2. How is someone 'in control' of a parked car thats not running. keys not even in the ignition?

 

[Craig234]

and I am saying that open container laws are another example of BS laws that solve basically no problems. People are OK with it because its been on the books for so long. You can beat people hollered when it was taken away.

Maybe. It's not the only misguided law we have if so. People still wrongly think capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The public argues whether no gun-laws or mandatory gun-laws make it safer.

It doesnt change that it's a valid law for the reasons I listed.

How is someone 'in control' of a parked car thats not running. keys not even in the ignition?[/QUOTE]

The statue clearly includes that as control of the vehicle. Ifyou look at the history, as the ruling says, the legislature actually changed it to make it apply to more situations and not get challenged in court.

 

[Carmen813]

A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.

"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.

Was this during the winter? If so, I'm not surprised it didn't start.

 

[Zargon]

Maybe. It's not the only misguided law we have if so. People still wrongly think capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The public argues whether no gun-laws or mandatory gun-laws make it safer.

we certainly have many misguided laws, no arguments here.

the public is stupid and general is resistant to change its opinion, and laws are driven by lobbyists out to get their agenda passed, an agenda that is unlikely to be in the publics best interest.

I am so not touching the gun laws thing, thats like, tossing gasoline on a fire!

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Sleeping in a car is not probable cause for an investigation. I've had the police knock on my window while I was sleeping in the car. I opened my eyes, squinted, glared, and went back to sleep. What are they going to do, knock my window out because I'm asleep?

Or, the cops could just pump you full of lead, like they did with that girl sleeping in her car a couple years back. Her mistake was having a gun on the seat beside her. IIRC, it took nearly fifty rounds to subdue her. A, , to anyone who can find a link, I tried for half an hour, but it seems the story has been taken off the interwebs, Hmmmmm

 

[Darwin333]

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 you should not be arrested if there is no real evidence of the theft. If the clerk says that he/she had 5 bottles of XYZ, hasn't sold any since he/she counted and only has 4 now that is a bit different. However, if no one in the store saw or can reasonably claim that anything was stolen and the only proof you have is a guy with a bottle in his pocket arresting him is a huge stretch.

Beyond that, because cops do have to make decisions in the field based on limited information, no one should ever be actually convicted of a crime with so little evidence and none of it being even remotely solid.

Yes, my way could see a criminal occasionally go free.
Your way could see innocent people occasionally (more than currently) be imprisoned.

The risk of a guilty man going free is well worth the gain of not convicting an innocent man.