Four Years For Drunk Napping
Drunk drivers can kill. Drunks sleeping it off? Well, they drool and have pretty scary-bad breath, but I don't believe it functions as any sort of death-ray.
But, never mind reason or reality.
A drunk in Minnesota with multiple DUIs was given a four-year sentence for sleeping drunk in his car. His inoperable car. Now, maybe he got in intending to drive somewhere, but unless he confessed to that or this was a jury of his mind-reading peers, they can't know that.
I have to say, a car is sometimes a very convenient place for a nap. Used mine for just that purpose recently. Most embarrassingly, I can get carsick from my own driving. All it takes is an excess of curvy roads, especially curves after dark, or stop-and-go traffic, especially with lots of fumes, and well...hello again, lunch!
Anyway, I had to go to Newbury Park. I made it there fine, but on the way to Pasadena (my next meeting of the day), there was a huge, stop-and-go traffic jam, and by the time I got on Colorado Blvd., I was ready to toss my cookies. I pulled over, and breathed for a while, and then got back in my car and drove onto a side street and found a space under a tree and napped off the nausea. In fact, I was in no condition to do anything else. Luckily, I wasn't drunk, or I would've had to get out and lie down on the sidewalk to keep from risking arrest.
Meanwhile, "could have driven" is like "could've shot you" simply because there happened to be a gun on the counter. Unless you actually offed somebody, or there's some proof you were plotting to, we have no case against you. Or rather, we shouldn't.
Yet, here, from thenewspaper.com, is the case:
Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that "towing assistance [was] likely available" creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could "easily" be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account...."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," Page wrote. "Based on the totality of the circumstances, the facts in the record, and the legitimate inferences drawn from them, we hold that a jury could reasonably conclude that Fleck was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more."
This napping drunk isn't a good guy, and maybe he would've driven if he could, but he couldn't and didn't, and we have no business whatsoever prosecuting people for thought crimes.
via overlawyered
I spent NYE sleeping in this parking lot, with the lights of this building as entertainment.
(It didn't have that music, though, which was good... And it was a lot more psychedelic than the video conveys.)
Okay, it was just a couple hours of snoozing, not the whole night. When you have two days' notice, you ain't going to get a room in Vegas for New Year's Eve... After trying about 40 places during the Big Party Hours, that's where I gave up. And I was completely sober. It was private property, so I'da moved if anybody asked.
But I think this story is mostly....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 27, 2010 12:52 AM
I saw this advice somewhere awhile back from a legal expert (I am not a lawyer, please consult with an attorney about your particular situation):
Sleep in the back seat and lie down. This makes it clear that you are not attempting to drive the car and not really in a position to do so. If there is no back seat, get as far away from the steering wheel as possible. Whatever you do, do not sit behind the wheel.
(not the exact words, but the meaning is correct.)
Simple, if you are in the drivers seat, you are (or can be) considered in control of the car.
The Former Banker at January 27, 2010 12:54 AM
... I think this story is a close cousin to this distressing piece by Balko. Consider also the corruptions described in this story from Talk of the Nation.
America was probably never as clean as we like to think it was, but corruption –shameless corruption– seems to be at an all time high. Then enforcements are happening for reasons completely removed from their stated purposes, and no one seems equipped to stop it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 27, 2010 12:57 AM
I'm iffy on this one. We have a similar law here in NY and I was surprised when I heard about it, but the thought process is that the drunks were going to drive or began to drive and passed out so the law was passed to prevent them from even considering getting behind the wheel. There is a passenger and back seat to sleep in. Its law designed to prevent drunk driving but while I can see arguments for both sides, I agree that it seems unfair to arrest someone for something they may do.
Kristen at January 27, 2010 5:46 AM
I once dated a guy that got a DWI on his 21st b-day, for putting the key in the passenger side door to get his overnight bag. He knew he was going to be drunk, and planned on staying at the place the party was. These absurd interpretations of it just hurt the cops who really do pull over people who are drunk and a danger.
momof4 at January 27, 2010 5:48 AM
Here's an interesting tidbit. In every state I know of, failing a breathalyzer test is considered prima facie: if you blow over the limit, you're guilty of DUI, period. No defense is possible. However, if you pass the breathalyzer, that does *not* serve as prima facie evidence of innocence: if the trooper decides that you didn't walk the white line straight enough, you can still be tried and convicted of DUI even though you blew under the limit. Doesn't happen often, but I've heard of it.
Cousin Dave at January 27, 2010 6:53 AM
The woman in this scenario was drunk, she almost certainly drove her car into a ditch, her keys were in the ignition, and she was a three-time offender. The real outrage is she only got four years.
In fact, while the police can haul you away for being passed out in the car, most big city cops won't bother unless the engine is running. It's too much hassle, particularly since the sleeping miscreant might not even be drunk, and a jury might not want to convict even if he was.
Steve Smith at January 27, 2010 7:15 AM
In most instances being homeless is effectively a crime. During cold nights the homeless will run their car engines for the heater. The homeless often have alcohol problems, or sometimes use alcohol to get to sleep in uncomfortable sleeping circumstances (like fearing being arrested for illegal camping or trespassing). Police get in the habit of stretching laws to go after what the general public tend to think of as undesirables, and then end up applying those law-enforcement habits to others as well. Both types of applications are wrong.
Richard Harper at January 27, 2010 8:37 AM
I've heard similar advice, with the additional caveat that you should lock your keys in the trunk first. Doing that while drunk seems like a really bad idea, but lots of really bad ideas seem perfectly reasonable while drunk.
As long as you're the only person in the car, I think you can still be charged with OWI, because police and prosecutors are unreasonable. The only sure fire way to avoid it is to have a sober person with the keys in the driver seat, making you a passenger.
Pseudonym at January 27, 2010 11:06 AM
I have slept in my car during my lunch hour in my employer's parking lot, so I can imagine someone getting in their car to sleep it off.
We do have to have this law on the books though. I noticed that the car behind me didn't go when the light turned green. I drove back around to make sure that there was not a medical problem. The driver was sound asleep at the intersection. I called the police. The driver was hauled in for drunk driving. Of course, he was not caught driving, he was sound asleep.
Police and prosecutors must use wise judgment. Unfortunately, *that* is in short supply.
Jen at January 27, 2010 6:26 PM
I have taking a nap in my car during my lunch-break, so I can see why someone would use the car to sleep it off.
On the other hand, we have to have laws like this. Often drunks fall asleep while driving. One such driver pulled up behind me. When he didn't go when the light turned green, I turned around fearing a medical problem. The driver was sound asleep. I called the police. Sure enough, he was drunk. Are you saying that without a witness, he should have gone free?
The police and prosecutors have to use discretion and good judgment. Unfortunately, those qualities are in scarce supply.
Jen at January 27, 2010 6:36 PM
Oops, forgive me for the double post. I am neither drunk nor driving, but I guess even that does not help sometimes. ; )
Jen at January 27, 2010 6:38 PM
While I am not sure it was in MN, it was in the N.W. 2nd Reporter, which includes MN, and I sort of suspect it was MN. In the mid 80's they had a case of a man who was drunk in a bar. He went out, and realizing he was drunk, felt he should not drive home, so he tossed the keys in the back seat and went to sleep, I assume in the front seat, in the alley behind the bar.
When the sun came up, the cops drove by and found him asleep there. He fought the case, and the state appellate system ruled, he could have dug out those keys and driven off, so he lost his license.
This is the case that first convinced me judges in general are senile, doddering old fools. And, it also probably was memorized by the cops, which is the reason it keeps coming up.
The second case also had nothing to do with divorce. A man was convicted of violating a law which specifically prohibited driving with two earphones on two ears, while driving with one earphone on one ear. It was also upheld by the state appellate court.
Of course, I should not have been surprised. The Dred Scott decision should have made the intellectual and mental health status of judges quite apparent. Okay, so I am a slow learner.
irlandes at January 27, 2010 6:41 PM
I have a friend who went to sleep in his back seat, and still got a DUI for it, because he had the keys in his possession.
LYT at January 28, 2010 2:41 AM
Crid: That article about forfeiture was really something. "Distressing" is the right word for it.
kishke at January 28, 2010 8:08 AM
Balko is good for America.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 28, 2010 6:46 PM
Leave a comment