Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by bigj480, Jan 25, 2010.
No different than "constructive intent", I guess. Pathetic.
It's a BS ruling. An essential element of DUI is driving. If you can't prove driving, it isn't DUI. I think Judge Page took too many hits to the head when he played football and it's catching up with him.
My vehicle can go considerably faster than the speed limit. If I am in it, with the keys, then I could make it go faster than the speed limit. Give me a ticket for reckless driving.
No surprise, "Physical Control" of a motor vehicle had been part of the DWI law for a long time now.
"Physical Control" is meant to cover such things as a drunk who drives, pulls over, passes out, and could wake up and drive at any time.
If a car was on block with no wheels, DWI would not apply (could not be made readily drivable).
But, just because a vehicle did not start, does not render the law mute.
That would be a DUI.
I believe that if you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated, the state should have to prove that you drove while intoxicated. I'm not saying that is the law. I'm saying that it should be the law. Charging someone with a DUI when you can't prove that they operated the vehicle while under the influence is the same as charging someone for murder for possessing a gun.
Legally parked on private property.
Being on private property, where the police lack jurisdiction involving the motor vehicle codes, should have been the argument for this guy. Reminds me of a guy I knew back east who was driving after drinking but pulled off the road to sleep it off. He woke up to the police knocking on his window early in the morning...got hit with a DUI but was obviously in the public realm.
Meh, not worth it.
I bet there's a good chance that the ruling would have been different if the guy didn't already have two prior dui convictions.
for starters ..
the apartments allow police to be there, its not your own private property .. its someone elses
and if the vehicle was sitting there with the engine tore apart, or like said above sitting on blocks, thats one thing,
but if the battery died or he ran out of gas, thats something different
The DWI law is NOT restricted to right of way.
DWI can occur anywhere in the state of MN, including frozen lakes, parking lots, and yes, private property (it's one of only a couple motor vehicle law violations you can commit on private property).
How this law came about is simple. Say you have a drunk driver who crashed into a house, killing a sleeping occupant.
The Cops arrive and find a drunk behind the wheel of the killing vehicle.
They arrest him for DWI- Criminal Vehicular Operation.
The Defense Attorney argues that the Police found him behind the wheel of a "non-functioning motor vehicle"... get the picture?
Or how about the drunk who drives until he runs out of gas, then passes out.
Or the drunk who is sleeping the the vehicle with the keys inside the interior of the vehicle, who could, up on a moments notice, drive said vehicle, while under the influence.
This is just at prep course in DWI/Physical control as it applies to MN.
Oh really now? Perhaps in your state, but not in mine, and as it pertains to DUI arrests not in the vast majority of states. Roadways, Highways, and Trafficways. This applies to private property upon which a vehicle is operated on by custom.
By your logic if I come upon a car that ran into a tree in your lawn with a drunk passed out behind the wheel, since the only place I can see him in control of the vehicle is on private property and therefore not enforceable.
Your statement is true regarding some traffic laws, however in this case it is insanely wrong.
If DUI did not apply on private property, any attorney fresh out of law school could have gotten it dismissed. The case would never have gotten as far as it did.
My arguement is that the law should not extend this far. My concern is this: what if said drunk was trying to do the right thing by sleeping it off in the car, rather than driving home? Are there better and wiser courses of action? Sure, but I'd much rather have the guy sleep it off in his car than go out and hit someone, and a few well-publicized arrests for this sort of thing may just push someone to try to drive home instead.
Also, I go car camping in campgrounds on occasion (much cheaper than a hotel). Sometimes, (especially if I have, um, company) I enjoy a few adult beverages before bed. I have never, and will never, operate a vehicle while intoxicated. However, under this statute, I would be guilty of DUI. This is absurd.
Well this is where discretion and the totality of the circumstances would come into play in terms of someone being charged with the crime. I would suspect if one would read the criminal complaint in the above case it would be very clear to almost anyone that the intent of this actor was to drive the vehicle away.
There are a few violations that may happen on private property.
Here is one city's law.
In most places in MN a vehicle on private property in the "front yard" must have current registration.......
This pertains to a vehicle on private property but visible from the street.
Then don't have keys (the ability to motivate in a motor vehicle at a moments notice, thus putting the public in harms way of your drunken driving) within your control.
Nope, not even in his state (AZ). Like MN, DUI is applicable everywhere. So are a couple other pieces of the Motor Vehicle Code.
Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!
Interesting. Can licensed drivers legally drink to intoxication inside motor homes? Can a licensed driver get drunk in a bar and return to sleep it off inside a motor home?