Minnesota Supreme court rules DUI possible in non-working car

[Nzinga, Seated]

I came across this article on Fark (http://thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp), and it struck a chord with me.

To summarize, a man was drunk and sleeping in his own parking lot in his car. The car was inoperable. The cop tried the key, the car wouldn't start. The keys were not even in the ignition, they were resting on the console. The hood of the car was cool.

I think the cops were wrong to arrest the man. The judge disagrees with me.

One time my mom was arrested for drunk driving. My mom is a sweetheart who would never hurt anyone. She was drunk, riding home from a party with my dad. They ran out of gas and pulled over to the side of the road. My dad left to buy gas from the gas station that was literally just a few yards away. My mom waited in the passenger side. She was arrested for drunk driving. She actually went to jail for the first and last time in her life.

Do you think the man should have been arrested? I hope this post is coherent, I'm trying to start this thread from work.

[Mr. Excellent]

I think it was certainly appropriate for Fleck to be arrested, and convicted, and for his conviction to be upheld. Per the linked article, Fleck believed that the car he was sitting in was actually operable. Whether it was or not - and it seems it wasn't - Fleck had attempted to place himself in a position to control a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over twice the legal limit in his jurisdiction. The factual impossibility of actually driving that vehicle doesn't seem important - it's common to convict people of attempted crimes even when those crimes would be impossible to complete successfully. If carefully plan my attempt to shoot you, hide in your bushes, and am foiled only by a defective firing pin - that's attempted first degree murder, at least in most jurisdictions.

Some behaviors are so dangerous that we don't want people even in dangerous proximity to engaging in them. Drunk people have no business in cars - the danger if they manage to start the things is simply too high.

[ZipperJJ]

I am rabidly against drunk driving, and have little to no sympathy for people who get DUIs...

But in the case of this Fleck guy and your mom...both stories are pretty insane and I would take the side of the defendant. I mean really, they both were doing the best thing they could do to avoid drinking and driving, or even being drunk in public.

[Nzinga, Seated]

I am rabidly against drunk driving, and have little to no sympathy for people who get DUIs...



Driving drunk is a low-life thing to do, of course. Scum of the earth stuff. And like Mr. Excellent said, there may be something to be said for just keeping drunk folks away from dangerous equipment. At the same time, over zealous cops make me nervous. Very nervous.

[Mr. Excellent]

I am rabidly against drunk driving, and have little to no sympathy for people who get DUIs...

But in the case of this Fleck guy and your mom...both stories are pretty insane and I would take the side of the defendant. I mean really, they both were doing the best thing they could do to avoid drinking and driving, or even being drunk in public.

I respectfully disagree. The OP's mom certainly did the right thing - she was drunk, so she got someone (her husband) to give her a ride home. She did everything she could to avoid being in control of a motor vehicle while drunk.

Fleck, though, didn't do everything he could have. Knowing that he didn't have someone to give him a ride home, he could have done as many drunks before him have done: called a cab, and slept it off at home.

[Magiver]

I think it was certainly appropriate for Fleck to be arrested, and convicted, and for his conviction to be upheld. Per the linked article, Fleck believed that the car he was sitting in was actually operable. Whether it was or not - and it seems it wasn't - Fleck had attempted to place himself in a position to control a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over twice the legal limit in his jurisdiction. The factual impossibility of actually driving that vehicle doesn't seem important - it's common to convict people of attempted crimes even when those crimes would be impossible to complete successfully. There is no indication that he attempted to commit a crime. what if he slept on the hood or in the trunk or back seat? What if he slept under the car?

[Xan]

I respectfully disagree. The OP's mom certainly did the right thing - she was drunk, so she got someone (her husband) to give her a ride home. She did everything she could to avoid being in control of a motor vehicle while drunk.

Fleck, though, didn't do everything he could have. Knowing that he didn't have someone to give him a ride home, he could have done as many drunks before him have done: called a cab, and slept it off at home.

He already was home. He was in the parking lot of his apartment complex.

[Contrapuntal]

Nzinga, you might want to ask a moderator to amend your title to reflect the fact that it is the Minnesota Supreme Court of that handed down the decision.



If carefully plan my attempt to shoot you, hide in your bushes, and am foiled only by a defective firing pin - that's attempted first degree murder, at least in most jurisdictions.
He wasn't convicted of attempted drunk driving.

[Giles]

Actually, Fleck was at home -- or in the parking lot of his home. I don't understand why he was in the car rather than in his apartment.

The SC ruled correctly: the charge was that he was in control of the car while drunk. The fact that his car could not start is irrelevant, especially since (as far as we can tell) he didn't know that. The only thing that disturbs me is the mandatory sentence: the court should be able to impose a lesser sentence for a technical DUI like this, compared with a case where a person is actually driving dangerously or has caused an accident.

[Ravenman]

I think it was certainly appropriate for Fleck to be arrested, and convicted, and for his conviction to be upheld. Per the linked article, Fleck believed that the car he was sitting in was actually operable. Whether it was or not - and it seems it wasn't - Fleck had attempted to place himself in a position to control a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over twice the legal limit in his jurisdiction. The factual impossibility of actually driving that vehicle doesn't seem important - it's common to convict people of attempted crimes even when those crimes would be impossible to complete successfully. If carefully plan my attempt to shoot you, hide in your bushes, and am foiled only by a defective firing pin - that's attempted first degree murder, at least in most jurisdictions.But there is a difference between a crime of attempted murder and attempted DUI -- to the best of my knowledge, attempted DUI isn't actually a crime.

The statue seems to say that one must be "in physical control" of a vehicle while drunk to be guilty. It does not appear that attempting to be in physical control is part of the statue.

I hope nobody here ever allows their children to sit in the driver's seat of a car, even if the keys are not in the car. Under the logic of this ruling, the fact that the child could not possibly operate the car is not a valid defense to a charge of driving without a license.

[Wheelz]

At least in Illinois, the laws are worded in ways that make it possible to be arrested for DUI if you are within some ill-defined proximity to your vehicle and its keys while drunk. This is intended to give enough leeway to the cops that they don't actually need to witness the act of drunk driving (e.g. your car is in a ditch and you're staggering around next to it when they arrive).

So one can see the reasoning behind such provisions, but I'd have to agree that, when it's clear the "driver" has not actually been driving impaired, and is unlikely to do so, a cop who makes a DUI arrest just because he can is being a total jackass.

[Contrapuntal]

The SC ruled correctly: the charge was that he was in control of the car while drunk. The fact that his car could not start is irrelevant, especially since (as far as we can tell) he didn't know that. I don't see how it is irrelevant, since it did not have the potential to start.

These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Nzinga, you might want to ask a moderator to amend your title to reflect the fact that it is the Minnesota Supreme Court of that handed down the decision.





Ok. I reported my own post and asked a mod to fix it. I hope I did it right. Thanks.

[Oakminster]

I don't have a problem with the decision, but I find it interesting that the author of the opinion is Alan Page, a former member of the Minnesota Vikings "Purple People Eaters" defense.

[Czarcasm]

Ok. I reported my own post and asked a mod to fix it. I hope I did it right. Thanks.Is done.

[Dinsdale]

The fact that his car could not start is irrelevant, especially since (as far as we can tell) he didn't know that.

I'd appreciate if you would elaborate on this. While he may have "intended" to DUI, under the only facts I see he had no opportunity to do so. But you believe his intent to do so (or at least the cop's report of his drunken statements) is sufficient?

What if the car didn't have an engine, or was up on blocks, yet in his drunken stupor he thought it was operable?

I've long opposed what I've considered a progression WRT upholding DUI convictions for people who were not operating moving vehicles. I think it horrible that someone who is drunk can choose to sleep it off in his car instead of driving, and get arrested for DUI.

Yes, DUI is a horrible offense. But in order to protect what I consider to be crucial freedoms, unfortunately, I feel the onus generally ought to be on the cops to have to catch someone "in the act." Along those lines, I'll suggest that perhaps he should have been punushed more severely for his 3 prior DUIs - probably shouldn't even have still had a valid license.

Before too long we're gonna hear about some guy who has an old car seat on his front porch, and gets arrested for sitting on it while drunk! ;)

[MeanOldLady]

Before too long we're gonna hear about some guy who has an old car seat on his front porch, and gets arrested for sitting on it while drunk! ;)Well... yeah. And I know you're not being entirely serious with this remark, but a guy being blitzed enough to think an inoperable car was operable isn't reason to charge him with a DUI. I've been drunk enough to think my sofa was a space ship. So what? I was never in danger of crashing my rocket into anything. Basically, this ruling translates, "You've had DUIs before, so we're going to go ahead and give you another one, even though you were not driving under the influence, and couldn't have if you tried. You would have, so enjoy."

He wasn't convicted of attempted drunk driving.Right!

[runner pat]

Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things:
1) He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car.
2) He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car.
The fact that he was over the limit after sleeping for hours just shows how drunk he was to start with. Any story that he was sleeping it off in his car rather than his apartment doesn't pass the sniff test.

As for the OP's mom, that was nuts. The car is out of gas and a sober operator is getting gas thus leaving open the possibility that she was not driving.

To the OP: was she only arrested or was she also convicted?

[Dinsdale]

Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things:
1) He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car.
2) He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car.


Or:
3) he had had a fight with his SO, and went out to his car to sleep.
4) his roomie had someone over, so he slept in the car.
5) the apartment had been painted, and the fumes were bothering him.

How many more you want?

I've got no problem with this guy being charged with public intoxication

[Ravenman]

Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things:
1) He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car.
2) He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car.I have had something like 3 tickets for busting a red light. This morning, I drove to work. I went through several intersections. Perhaps I should have been pulled over and ticketed for running a red light, because I was in fact driving my car, and the only thing preventing me from running a red light was the fact that all the lights were green.

[Hal Briston]

I've long opposed what I've considered a progression WRT upholding DUI convictions for people who were not operating moving vehicles. I think it horrible that someone who is drunk can choose to sleep it off in his car instead of driving, and get arrested for DUI.Bingo. Save the DUI arrests for someone who is actually driving. I don't care if you're found in a parkway rest stop, buckled in at the drivers seat of a vehicle with the engine running looking to sleep it off -- if you're not actively driving at that moment, then there is no way you should be booked on this.

Unfortunately this had become too much of a cash cow for states to tone back the laws to a reasonable level.

[Stuffy]

I’m also a rabidly Anti Drunk Driver. Thanks largely to the SDMB I’ve found myself becoming increasingly uncomfortable with both the expanded definitions of drunk “driving” as well as the ever expanding scope of what’s permissible when setting up DWI checkpoints. I’m going to lose sleep over it any day now, I’m sure. Snark aside; I don’t know where to draw the line but I do believe we’ve crossed it somewhere back aways.

[Nzinga, Seated]

As for the OP's mom, that was nuts. The car is out of gas and a sober operator is getting gas thus leaving open the possibility that she was not driving.

To the OP: was she only arrested or was she also convicted?

It was years ago, so I really can't remember the follow up details. I'm pretty sure that nothing ever came of it though, although the story lives on in legend in our family.

[robby]

I have a real problem with punishing people who are trying to do the right thing, which is what this current trend is doing.

I have heard of a case where a guy was put out of a bar when it closed, realized he was too drunk to drive, didn't have a phone and/or couldn't find someone to pick him up, so he decided to sleep it off in his car, rather than lie on the sidewalk in the middle of winter. So as not to be accused of DUI, he threw his keys as far as he could into an adjacent field and went to sleep.

A few hours later, a cop tapped on his window and arrested him for DUI.

Having failed to get a cab, he would have been better off to just drive home and take his chances, thereby endangering others. By sleeping it off, he got just as severe a penalty, and by spending hours in car as opposed to the minutes it would have taken him to drive home, he made it almost certain that he'd be caught for his "crime" of sleeping it off.

The courts are, IMHO, making bad public policy and encouraging drunk people to just drive home instead of waiting until they are sober enough to drive.

[ZipperJJ]

Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things:
1) He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car.
2) He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car.

Meh...for all of the drunks I know, I'd choose a different option: He was completely futzed and had no idea where his apartment might be but hey imma gon get in my car now an...zzzzzz.....

Maybe he was going to drive or maybe he drove there drunk, but I am not convinced those are the only two possibilities.

I can't believe I am standing up for a serial drinker, either. Eep!

[Trom]

A friend of mine had something similar happen to him.

He was in college in Fargo and living in a dorm. There was drinking, in which he participated, going on in his dorm room. There was a conflict/fight of some kind and he wanted to get out of the room and end his night. So, he went to the parking lot and got in the BACK seat of his car to sleep.

He was woken up by a police officer knocking on the window. He was arrested for DWI and convicted. He had no priors.

[Omniscient]

I have a real problem with punishing people who are trying to do the right thing, which is what this current trend is doing.

I have heard of a case where a guy was put out of a bar when it closed, realized he was too drunk to drive, didn't have a phone and/or couldn't find someone to pick him up, so he decided to sleep it off in his car, rather than lie on the sidewalk in the middle of winter. So as not to be accused of DUI, he threw his keys as far as he could into an adjacent field and went to sleep.

A few hours later, a cop tapped on his window and arrested him for DUI.

Having failed to get a cab, he would have been better off to just drive home and take his chances, thereby endangering others. By sleeping it off, he got just as severe a penalty, and by spending hours in car as opposed to the minutes it would have taken him to drive home, he made it almost certain that he'd be caught for his "crime" of sleeping it off.

The courts are, IMHO, making bad public policy and encouraging drunk people to just drive home instead of waiting until they are sober enough to drive.

This pretty much sums things up from my point of view. These stories of people being arrested for sleeping in or near cars really contributes to more drinking and driving. It's aggressively stupid policy. One can be sure that the proportion of people arrested for sleeping drunk in cars far outweighs the proportion of people arrested driving drunk. This essentially tells drunks to hurry up and drive home because you're getting a DUI if you don't.

Additionally, the laws crafted in order to allow great latitude and discretion to police officers are particularly upsetting because the police have shown repeatedly that they are not capable of handling said responsibility rationally and judiciously.

I have to ask: Why was the cop in the apartment buildings parking lot? Is patrolling parking lots on private land something that is part of his job? Did someone call and request his presence there? Perhaps if the police have time to spend patrolling parking lots on a weeknight they simply have too much staff and too large a budget.

I suppose the innocent until proven guilty doctrine is dead and buried. It's Minority Report in action, without less confidence in the courts ability to read peoples minds.

[Recliner]

At least in Illinois, the laws are worded in ways that make it possible to be arrested for DUI if you are within some ill-defined proximity to your vehicle and its keys while drunk. This is intended to give enough leeway to the cops that they don't actually need to witness the act of drunk driving (e.g. your car is in a ditch and you're staggering around next to it when they arrive).

So one can see the reasoning behind such provisions, but I'd have to agree that, when it's clear the "driver" has not actually been driving impaired, and is unlikely to do so, a cop who makes a DUI arrest just because he can is being a total jackass.

Bingo. The laws are intended to prevent people nitpicking about whether they were actually driving; to arrest people for OUI when they're purely sitting in a car -- and more importantly, haven't demonstrated any intention to drive, or of HAVING driven -- is punishing people severely for doign nothing wrong.

[Omniscient]

Bingo. The laws are intended to prevent people nitpicking about whether they were actually driving; to arrest people for OUI when they're purely sitting in a car -- and more importantly, haven't demonstrated any intention to drive, or of HAVING driven -- is punishing people severely for doign nothing wrong.

I'd rather have the people nitpicking their way out of tickets than the police nitpicking their way into them.

[Magiver]

Driving under the influence is a clearly defined act. Thinking about driving under the influence is not. The precedent that this sets is enormous.

The court system is drunk on power.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Driving under the influence is a clearly defined act. Thinking about driving under the influence is not. The precedent that this sets is enormous.

The court system is drunk on power.

Yeah, I was thinking more about what Mr. Excellent said about drunks being in close proximity to cars, and I have decided that is just ridiculous. At any given time, a drunk can go from standing around innocently to hopping in a car and driving away, in about a 6 second time span. But we don't arrest drunk people for simply standing near a car. Yet.

And let's really focus in on the details of the case. The keys weren't even in the ignition. There is no indication that the man intended to actually drive.

The law is about driving while intoxicated...or is it not? Where is Bricker to break down the 411 on this.

[Tom Tildrum]

It seems that the weak point in this conviction is the conclusion that he was in control of the car. The car could not be driven; in what meaningful sense was he "controlling" it?

Yes, it's possible that he could have awakened, put the car in neutral, and pushed it out into the road. But this same potentiality exists if he'd been sleeping in his bed upstairs -- it's possible that he could have walked downstairs and pushed the car.

If he'd taken a cab, it would have been possible for him to overpower the driver and take control of the vehicle. How is sitting in the back of a drivable car less dangerous than sitting in the front of one that can't move?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

But there is a difference between a crime of attempted murder and attempted DUI -- to the best of my knowledge, attempted DUI isn't actually a crime.

The statue seems to say that one must be "in physical control" of a vehicle while drunk to be guilty. It does not appear that attempting to be in physical control is part of the statue.

I hope nobody here ever allows their children to sit in the driver's seat of a car, even if the keys are not in the car. Under the logic of this ruling, the fact that the child could not possibly operate the car is not a valid defense to a charge of driving without a license.

Who are you? Cosmo Kramer? Statute! It's not a sculpture of intoxication.

[runner pat]

Who are you? Cosmo Kramer? Statute! It's not a sculpture of intoxication.

That's true, he wasn't stoned. :D

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Unfortunately this had become too much of a cash cow for states to tone back the laws to a reasonable level.

Sending someone to prison for four years is hardly a way for the state to make money.

[smiling bandit]

Sending someone to prison for four years is hardly a way for the state to make money.

As I understand it, the local municipalities get the fine money. The state gets (and pays for) the prisoners.

[rbroome]

I came across this article on Fark (http://thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp), and it struck a chord with me.

To summarize, a man was drunk and sleeping in his own parking lot in his car. The car was inoperable. The cop tried the key, the car wouldn't start. The keys were not even in the ignition, they were resting on the console. The hood of the car was cool.

I think the cops were wrong to arrest the man. The judge disagrees with me.

One time my mom was arrested for drunk driving. My mom is a sweetheart who would never hurt anyone. She was drunk, riding home from a party with my dad. They ran out of gas and pulled over to the side of the road. My dad left to buy gas from the gas station that was literally just a few yards away. My mom waited in the passenger side. She was arrested for drunk driving. She actually went to jail for the first and last time in her life.

Do you think the man should have been arrested? I hope this post is coherent, I'm trying to start this thread from work.

I read the opinion from the supreme court. In it there is a case where a passenger was arrested and convicted, and the conviction upheld, because the passenger was drunk and alone. The car was driven by her son, who was giving her a ride home, skidded and ended up in a ditch. The car was inoperable without the use of a tow truck which the son had gone to call. The court held that since the drunk women was in the car with keys in her pocket and all it would take was a tow truck to make the car operable, she was guilty of drunk driving. The appeals court overturned her conviction, but the state supreme court reversed.

I honestly don't know what could have happened to avoid conviction. If she had stood outside in the snow, she still would have been in control of the car. What is even stranger, is that the law had been specifically amended to make it more expansive and more applicable to situations such as this. And efforts to tighten the law to make such things less likely had been defeated.

Being a drunk passenger is apparently a specific exemption-but there had better be a sober driver in the car. Talk about a dirty trick-offer to drive someone who has been drinking home, get halfway there and get out of the car and call the cops. Doesn't have to be their car and the car doesn't have to be operable, just leave a set of keys in the glove box. Great way to get back at someone....

[Magiver]

I read the opinion from the supreme court. In it there is a case where a passenger was arrested and convicted, and the conviction upheld, because the passenger was drunk and alone. The car was driven by her son, who was giving her a ride home, skidded and ended up in a ditch. The car was inoperable without the use of a tow truck which the son had gone to call. The court held that since the drunk women was in the car with keys in her pocket and all it would take was a tow truck to make the car operable, she was guilty of drunk driving. The appeals court overturned her conviction, but the state supreme court reversed.

I honestly don't know what could have happened to avoid conviction. If she had stood outside in the snow, she still would have been in control of the car. What is even stranger, is that the law had been specifically amended to make it more expansive and more applicable to situations such as this. And efforts to tighten the law to make such things less likely had been defeated.

Being a drunk passenger is apparently a specific exemption-but there had better be a sober driver in the car. Talk about a dirty trick-offer to drive someone who has been drinking home, get halfway there and get out of the car and call the cops. Doesn't have to be their car and the car doesn't have to be operable, just leave a set of keys in the glove box. Great way to get back at someone.... So now we have multiple layers of stupid. Not only did the arresting officer exercise poor judgment but the Judge certified it.

Karma, you know what to do. Pee on his bowl of cheerios and make it public.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I honestly don't know what could have happened to avoid conviction.How about not getting so drunk that she has to call her son to come pick her up and drive her home?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Bingo. Save the DUI arrests for someone who is actually driving. I don't care if you're found in a parkway rest stop, buckled in at the drivers seat of a vehicle with the engine running looking to sleep it off -- if you're not actively driving at that moment, then there is no way you should be booked on this.So you would not charge all the drunks found in their cars that have run off the road into a ditch, or run into a railing, or went off the road and crashed into a tree in somebody's yard?

[Magiver]

How about not getting so drunk that she has to call her son to come pick her up and drive her home? So now it's illegal to get drunk? Not that I understand the thrill of it but I don't see how the responsible use of a designated driver falls into the conversation.

[bengangmo]

So you would not charge all the drunks found in their cars that have run off the road into a ditch, or run into a railing, or went off the road and crashed into a tree in somebody's yard?

The way that its always been handled in my neck of the woods is that you would be charged if it is a "reaosnable assumption" (I won't go into the legal definition of this) that you had been driving drunk...i.e - if you were found blind drunk in a layby with a hot engine, you would be charged - if you were found asleep in the back seat with a cold engine in the pub parking lot, not so much (but the copper might take you home if he was in a good mood)

[Omniscient]

So you would not charge all the drunks found in their cars that have run off the road into a ditch, or run into a railing, or went off the road and crashed into a tree in somebody's yard?

Better those folks get off than innocents getting busted who don't deserve it. That's the entire foundation of our judicial system after all.

[Nzinga, Seated]

- if you were found blind drunk in a layby with a hot engine, you would be charged - if you were found asleep in the back seat with a cold engine in the pub parking lot, not so much

Yeah, in the article, it states that the cop touched the hood and it was cool. What is the point of checking that the hood is cool, if you are going to arrest him anyways? He was clearly just hoping it was hot so that the charges would be that much stickier.

[billfish678]

So now we have multiple layers of stupid. Not only did the arresting officer exercise poor judgment but the Judge certified it.

Karma, you know what to do. Pee on his bowl of cheerios and make it public.

Bingo.

Nothing chaps my hide more than judges that refuse to do an ounce of "judging".

Yeah, we don't want rampant judicial activism where they just do what the hell they feel like regardless of what the law says, but on the otherhand a little use of actual judgement to keep the law from a being a total ass would be nice.

[BomTek]

This pretty much sums things up from my point of view. These stories of people being arrested for sleeping in or near cars really contributes to more drinking and driving. It's aggressively stupid policy. One can be sure that the proportion of people arrested for sleeping drunk in cars far outweighs the proportion of people arrested driving drunk. This essentially tells drunks to hurry up and drive home because you're getting a DUI if you don't.

Cite (for the part that I bolded)?
I agree with the gyst of your post, Omni, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people in positions of power in Minnesota, but there's no way I can accept this statement without a cite.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

I am sure glad I don't live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can't imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judge, which I would never rely on to do the right thing. Did the guy get up and testify he was not driving but sleeping only?

[RTFirefly]

But there is a difference between a crime of attempted murder and attempted DUI -- to the best of my knowledge, attempted DUI isn't actually a crime.

The statue seems to say that one must be "in physical control" of a vehicle while drunk to be guilty. It does not appear that attempting to be in physical control is part of the statue.

I hope nobody here ever allows their children to sit in the driver's seat of a car, even if the keys are not in the car. Under the logic of this ruling, the fact that the child could not possibly operate the car is not a valid defense to a charge of driving without a license.Word.

This decision flies in the face of common sense in any number of ways. Say you've driven to a bar and gotten drunk, and you know you need to sober up. But if you stay in the bar, you know it'll be hard to resist the temptation to have another drink or two. So you go outside, but it's winter. Where do you go? Your car: it's either there, or back into the bar, or into some other bar, or stand out in the cold. The car wins.

And then you can get busted for DUI, when you weren't even driving, and had no intention of driving. And based on instances cited in this thread, that would be true even if you never got behind the wheel, but instead sat in the passenger seat, or maybe even curled up in the back seat. (Lord help you if you turned on the ignition to run the heater. That would remove all doubt about your intention to drive drunk.)

And here we thought 'DUI' stood for driving while intoxicated.

[Dinsdale]

And here we thought 'DUI' stood for driving while intoxicated.

Well, maybe not ALL of us thought that! :p

[Contrapuntal]

I am sure glad I don't live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can't imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judge, which I would never rely on to do the right thing.Is there any chance that you could be bothered to read the cited article?

[Omniscient]

Cite (for the part that I bolded)?
I agree with the gyst of your post, Omni, and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people in positions of power in Minnesota, but there's no way I can accept this statement without a cite.

No such cite exists, obviously, but I think we can all agree that a person sleeping in a parked car for perhaps 4 hours has a higher likelihood of randomly crossing paths with a cop than a person driving home drunk for perhaps 10 minutes. Assuming you're not so drunk that you're driving like Stevie Wonder a cop probably isn't going to take notice of you driving home and even if you are swerving more times than not you'll not pass a cop anyways. If you're sleeping in a parked car, trying to make the best of a bad situation, it becomes exponentially more likely that a cop will see you during his beat with every passing minute.

[gonzomax]

This seems a bit like automatically giving a ticket to a guy who buys a hot sports car. You can call it" intent to speed'. I am sure stats could justify that ticket too.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Contra, I re-read it and still do not see the questions I raised answered there. I am assuming he acted like a drunk, looked like a drunk, would not speak, and then got convicted if a jury did do this. I bet he never testified, which is a sure way I'd convict (and have on a jury). If the accused does not want to say why he was there I could only assume it was to drive too. I would have issue with there being any probable cause to wake up someone in his own property, legally parked, however.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I don't have a problem with the decision, but I find it interesting that the author of the opinion is Alan Page, a former member of the Minnesota Vikings "Purple People Eaters" defense.He is one of the most respected people on the Mn Supreme Court. Certainly better, IMO, than any of the appointees of the last 10 years. He was the lead on the Court for the Franken-Coleman Senate recount trials.

He & his wife also run a scholarship program for disadvantaged youth.

And I would certainly say that he and his fellow "Purple People Eaters" did better defense work than we saw in last Sundays' game!!!!

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I have to ask: Why was the cop in the apartment buildings parking lot? Is patrolling parking lots on private land something that is part of his job? Did someone call and request his presence there? Perhaps if the police have time to spend patrolling parking lots on a weeknight they simply have too much staff and too large a budget.The cops were there because another resident had called them, to report that she had seen a person was passed out in a car, with the drivers door hanging open.
I am sure glad I don't live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can't imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judgeNo, it was a jury that heard all the testimony and convicted him.
Did the guy get up and testify he was not driving but sleeping only?Among the various stories he told the police at the time of his arrest were:
- that he had come down from his apartment to get some item out of his car, but then fell asleep before he could get back to his apartment (but he did not have any item with him)
- that he had come down from his air-conditioned bedroom just to sit in the vehicle, and fell asleep there.
But I don't think he actually testified to any of these stories at his trial.

As far as the car being inoperable, that is questionable. The only evidence on that is that after sitting in the impound lot for 2-1/2 weeks, it did not start. The vehicle had been used previously, before his arrest.

[Magiver]

I don't understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress.

[Rumor_Watkins]

I don't understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress.

because DUI laws extend past public roadways in some states?

[Magiver]

because DUI laws extend past public roadways in some states? that's a scary thought.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I don't understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress.How about if you beat your spouse while on private property (inside your own house)?
How about if you commit a murder on private property -- can the police come onto private property and arrest you?

Of course they can!
Our criminal laws apply to all the land within our country, public or private.

[Iridescent Orb]

One of the problems with letting people "sleep it off" in their cars is they frequently wake up still intoxicated and attempt drive home. If someone goes to sleep at three times the legal limit, they often feel pretty sober when they wake up at two times the legal limit...

[Magiver]

How about if you beat your spouse while on private property (inside your own house)?
How about if you commit a murder on private property -- can the police come onto private property and arrest you?

Of course they can!
Our criminal laws apply to all the land within our country, public or private. Great except he WASN'T DRIVING on public property. Are they going to respond if someone calls in a neighbor they see walking past their car in the garage with a beer. That's a violation of open container laws.

[Magiver]

One of the problems with letting people "sleep it off" in their cars is they frequently wake up still intoxicated and attempt drive home. If someone goes to sleep at three times the legal limit, they often feel pretty sober when they wake up at two times the legal limit... That applies to people sleeping in their own home and then going out to Taco Bell because of the munchies.

The most that should be done is arrest for public intoxication because no other crime was being committed at the time of arrest.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Great except he WASN'T DRIVING on public property. And he wasn't charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of "being in physical control" of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

[Magiver]

And he wasn't charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of "being in physical control" of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. And how was he physically controlling it? did the car have ass-assist stearing?

His conviction was nothing but an abuse of the English language. Fyi, I'm controlling my car through mental telepathy as I type this. I've commanded the car not to move in the garage with the engine off.

[Nzinga, Seated]

As far as the car being inoperable, that is questionable. The only evidence on that is that after sitting in the impound lot for 2-1/2 weeks, it did not start. The vehicle had been used previously, before his arrest.

I know you are going to think I'm playing dumb (a lot of folks think that) but this is a serious question. Is it common for a car to not start after sitting for two weeks? Also, shouldn't the arresting officer had at least see if the car would even start before he made the arrest? He had the forethought to test the heat of the hood...why not, upon finding the hood completely cool, test to see that the car works?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

His conviction was nothing but an abuse of the English language. Fyi, I'm controlling my car through mental telepathy as I type this. I've commanded the car not to move in the garage with the engine off.Fine.
Convince a jury of that, and an Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court -- like he did. Then we can all bow to your mental telepathy.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

But there is a difference between a crime of attempted murder and attempted DUI -- to the best of my knowledge, attempted DUI isn't actually a crime.In essence, it is. "Attempted DUI" is basically what open container laws are all about. Think about this one:

You have dinner at a friend's house. You have nothing alcoholic to drink. As you're leaving, friend mentions that he has a open bottle of whiskey left over from a party and he doesn't like whiskey. He gives you the bottle. You drop it on the passenger seat and drive home.

Your blood alcohol is zero. You haven't had a thing to drink. There's only an ounce or so of whiskey in the bottle--not enough to take you over the blood alcohol limit for DUI. You're not in violation of any DUI law and you couldn't violate a DUI law without going somewhere and drinking something.

You can still be charged with an open container violation because there's an unsealed bottle within reach of the driver's seat and you MIGHT be tempted to take a drink from it and then go get more bottles and drink from them.

As much as I dislike the precedent set by the case the OP described, there's plenty of other equally stupid alcohol-related legal precedent.

[Dr. Love]

At least in Illinois, the laws are worded in ways that make it possible to be arrested for DUI if you are within some ill-defined proximity to your vehicle and its keys while drunk. This is intended to give enough leeway to the cops that they don't actually need to witness the act of drunk driving (e.g. your car is in a ditch and you're staggering around next to it when they arrive).
How is this law any different from simply making it illegal to be drunk? If you drink in your own house, odds are quite good that you're in the proximity of both your keys and your car. Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there.

[robby]

...Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there.But what if someone else's car is at this other location? What if the alcohol makes you mug them and steal their car? What if the alcohol makes you hotwire a car that is parked outside the bar?

These rulings are just too stupid for words. :rolleyes:

[Nzinga, Seated]

How is this law any different from simply making it illegal to be drunk? If you drink in your own house, odds are quite good that you're in the proximity of both your keys and your car. Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there.

Not to mention, bars. Or house parties. I mean, it can get ridiculous.

To repeat my question before, can someone please tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I understand the outrage here but I don't understand the surprise. Courts have been ruling that various scenarios not involving actual driving constituted DUI for years.

In Florida, for example, under existing case law you are only safe from prosecution when sleeping in your car under two scenarios: the keys are not physically inside the car and not within reach from the interior of the vehicle (so tossing them under the car is no good); or the keys are in the locked trunk and the vehicle has no interior trunk release.

The latter presents rather obvious problems, given that it won't be any easier to retrieve your keys from an impenetrable trunk even when sober.
To repeat my question before, can someone please tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks.
Common, no. Eminently plausible, yes. Vehicle electrical systems draw a small amount of current whether or not the vehicle is running - to keep the clock and certain radio functions operating, for example - and a bad or otherwise discharged battery can be drained enough to require a jump after two weeks.

[muldoonthief]

Not to mention, bars. Or house parties. I mean, it can get ridiculous.

To repeat my question before, can someone please tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks.

Not really. The only thing that would commonly cause that is a weak/old battery, and/or a car with a high current drain when off. The engine itself should handle 2 weeks with no problem.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, barring an oil leak or something.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Thanks. I am pretty sure that car wasn't even working at all, and the cop knew it and is an asshole. Pretty sure.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Great except he WASN'T DRIVING on public property. Are they going to respond if someone calls in a neighbor they see walking past their car in the garage with a beer. That's a violation of open container laws.

open container laws don't extend to private property

[pravnik]

Contra, I re-read it and still do not see the questions I raised answered there. I am assuming he acted like a drunk, looked like a drunk, would not speak, and then got convicted if a jury did do this. I bet he never testified, which is a sure way I'd convict (and have on a jury). If the accused does not want to say why he was there I could only assume it was to drive too.That would violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. If the instructions from the judge clearly stated that you were not allowed to take the defendant's refusal to testify against him in any way, would you still do so?

ETA: Wait, You say you have been on a jury and convicted based on the defendant's refusal to testify?

[Contrapuntal]

Contra, I re-read it and still do not see the questions I raised answered there. You've read it twice and still don't know the answer to this question? -- Was this a jury trial?

[kanicbird]

This, and the OP's mom's experience, is a reflection of the very sad state that we have gotten to. The saying 'the law is a ass' comes to mind, and innocent people are once again thrown in jail for the actions of people who don't seem to exercise humanity towards a fellow human.

[Really Not All That Bright]

open container laws don't extend to private property
Depends on the state. In at least a few, open container laws do extend to non-licensed publicly accessible property regardless of whether or not it is private - so the front yard of your house is fine, but the common area in front of your apartment may not be.

[Contrapuntal]

And he wasn't charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of "being in physical control" of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.Ahem. From the first sentence of the linked article.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Here's the relevant statute (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.20&year=2009&keyword_type=all&keyword=driving+under+the+influence), for the record:
169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle.It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:

(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;

(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;

(3) the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;

(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3);

(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;

(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or

(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.
Also, the definition of a motor vehicle under the MN Statutes, just for fun:
169A.03 DEFINITIONS.

Subd. 15.Motor vehicle."Motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. The term includes motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, but does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power.
Doesn't say the vehicle must be operational.

[Shodan]

In Florida, for example, under existing case law you are only safe from prosecution when sleeping in your car under two scenarios: the keys are not physically inside the car and not within reach from the interior of the vehicle (so tossing them under the car is no good); or the keys are in the locked trunk and the vehicle has no interior trunk release.I know this is Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Treatment Centers, but isn't the purpose of these exceptions to ensure that it is not possible to drive the car?

Which is the case here. It is not possible that the guy was guilty of driving the car under the influence - the damn thing wouldn't run.

Regards,
Shodan

[Magiver]

open container laws don't extend to private property So he wasn't drinking, wasn't driving and he was on private property. What have I missed here?

[Really Not All That Bright]

1. The purpose of the exceptions is irrelevant. Judges can only adhere to the spirit of the law where it does not contradict the letter.

2. Since this was presumably a registered and insured vehicle and not obviously in such a state of disrepair as to appear undriveable, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that it wouldn't run.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So he wasn't drinking, wasn't driving and he was on private property. What have I missed here?
You brought up open container laws. The guy was not charged with a violation of open container laws.

[Rumor_Watkins]

So he wasn't drinking, wasn't driving and he was on private property. What have I missed here?

That he was in violation of Minnesota's DUI statute?

[Ravenman]

Doesn't say the vehicle must be operational.It's a stupid law. If a shade-tree mechanic were to have a couple of beers while tinkering with his fuel injector, under this law he could be convicted of DUI if he pushes his car six feet back into his garage. That is wrong.

[Rumor_Watkins]

It's a stupid law. If a shade-tree mechanic were to have a couple of beers while tinkering with his fuel injector, under this law he could be convicted of DUI if he pushes his car six feet back into his garage. That is wrong.

That's not the court's problem.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, but he's not blaming the court, he's blaming the legislature - "it's a stupid law". Which is true, of course - there should absolutely be a specific exemption as to intent in there somewhere.

[Omniscient]

That's not the court's problem.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing posted on the Dope this week.

"The judiciary is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state."

The courts only purpose (problem) is to interpret the law's intent. You have it backwards, the cops are the ones who are supposed to adhere to the letter of the law while the courts are supposed to interpret the intent of the law and the grey areas within. They are supposed to apply judgment (see that word?) in the application of said laws and in the hypothetical mentioned above and in the case from the OP the court they would have and did fail miserably.

Alan Page, another reason for hate the fucking Vikings.

[brewha]

169A.03 DEFINITIONS.

Subd. 15.Motor vehicle."Motor vehicle" means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. The term includes motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, but does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power.


Kinda depends on what your definition of "is" is, doesn't it? Just because a vehicle was self-propelled means that it is self propelled.

[Rumor_Watkins]

This is perhaps the stupidest thing posted on the Dope this week.

"The judiciary is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state."

The courts only purpose (problem) is to interpret the law's intent. You have it backwards, the cops are the ones who are supposed to adhere to the letter of the law while the courts are supposed to interpret the intent of the law and the grey areas within. They are supposed to apply judgment (see that word?) in the application of said laws and in the hypothetical mentioned above and in the case from the OP the court they would have and did fail miserably.


You're casually inserting a purpose here. Your definition does not lend credence to the fact that the courts "interpret intent" they just "interpret" ambiguous statutes. They especially aren't supposed to "interpret the intent of the law" when there is a statute directly criminalizing the act in question.

It is a DUI to be in "physical control of the car". If the finder of fact has reasonably concluded that the person in this case is in physical control of the car, the court cannot, and should not, do anything about that. They most definitely shouldn't have a right to dismiss a conviction because of some mythical "intent" to the law that a judge wants to read into it.

here's what the court actually has to say about this very point:

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. 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.

now, if you're making constitutional claims as to the validity of the law, maybe then a court will concern itself with whether that law is constitutional, which may bring in "intent of the law" analysis. but not here.

[billfish678]

This is perhaps the stupidest thing posted on the Dope this week.



Yep.

This is what drives me crazy on the Dope. Somebody gets bent outa shape because somebody got in trouble with the law for doing something.

Then somebody else points out that technically thats what the law says.

Does that really change the OPs position significantly? All that happens is now the OP (and many other posters) are pissed that the actual law sucks rather than the fact that someone misapplied the law.

I guess if someone was asking a specific, legal, factual question or this was a law class such observations might be useful. Otherwise, IMO, not so much.

Its like every law related complaint on the Dope has to have one of these.

Minirant over.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Thanks. I am pretty sure that car wasn't even working at all, and the cop knew it and is an asshole. Pretty sure.No, the car had been used earlier.

The information I had from someone up in the town of Crookston was that this guy had passed out in the car, with the headlights on. That was one of the reasons a neighbor noticed it, and then saw him passed out in the drivers seat, with the door hanging open, so she called 911.

[Magiver]

That he was in violation of Minnesota's DUI statute? which is the point of the thread and how abstract the law has been applied. He wasn't operating the car. He wasn't attempting to operate the car.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

So he wasn't drinking, wasn't driving and he was on private property. What have I missed here?You don't have to be drinking at the same time you are driving to violate the law!

This guy's blood alcohol was 2-1/2 times the legal limit, and he had 3 empty beer cans on the floor next to him. The jury certainly found that he had been drinking 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

It's a stupid law. If a shade-tree mechanic were to have a couple of beers while tinkering with his fuel injector, under this law he could be convicted of DUI if he pushes his car six feet back into his garage. That is wrong.Only if a jury of his peers convicted him. Do you think that is likely to happen? There certainly has been no such case in Minnesota.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

You're casually inserting a purpose here. Your definition does not lend credence to the fact that the courts "interpret intent" they just "interpret" ambiguous statutes. They especially aren't supposed to "interpret the intent of the law" when there is a statute directly criminalizing the act in question.

It is a DUI to be in "physical control of the car". If the finder of fact has reasonably concluded that the person in this case is in physical control of the car, the court cannot, and should not, do anything about that. They most definitely shouldn't have a right to dismiss a conviction because of some mythical "intent" to the law that a judge wants to read into it.And the Court has some clear guidance from the Legislature that they wanted the statute interpreted this way.

The original statute said "actual physical control of the car". After various court cases where they argued about just the sort of things people have brought up here -- how close were the keys, was he in the drivers or passengers seat, etc. -- the Legislature removed the word "actual" from the statute, to clarify their intent. This Supreme Court decision mentions that legislative history in this decision, to indicate that they are following the intent of this law.

[Shodan]

...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."Without too much difficulty"? Not even the police could get the thing to start.

There does not seem to be any evidence that he drove the car while drunk. The hood was cold, and the car would not start. It was in his parking lot. Unless he confessed and the article doesn't mention it, there is no evidence that he drove drunk, and substantial reason to believe that he didn't.

It's not like he's passed out by the side of the road. What hapened to the presumption of innocence?

Regards,
Shodan

[Ravenman]

Only if a jury of his peers convicted him. Do you think that is likely to happen? There certainly has been no such case in Minnesota.Does "physical control" mean "physical control?" Whether or not sitting in the driver's seat without the engine running constitutes physical control, pushing a car is OBVIOUSLY exerting physical control.

And yes, the tipsy shadetree mechanic would indeed have to be arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced under a stupid law. Whatever point you may have isn't getting through the chaff of minutiae you're using to argue for it.

If I were on the jury of the case linked to in the OP, given what is known, there's no way I could vote for conviction. I do not believe that it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is capable of being in physical control of a non-operational vehicle.

However, if there were some circumstantial evidence that the man had operated or made the car move, I would convict in a second.

[Magiver]

Does "physical control" mean "physical control?" Whether or not sitting in the driver's seat without the engine running constitutes physical control, pushing a car is OBVIOUSLY exerting physical control.

And yes, the tipsy shadetree mechanic would indeed have to be arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced under a stupid law. Whatever point you may have isn't getting through the chaff of minutiae you're using to argue for it.

If I were on the jury of the case linked to in the OP, given what is known, there's no way I could vote for conviction. I do not believe that it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is capable of being in physical control of a non-operational vehicle.

However, if there were some circumstantial evidence that the man had operated or made the car move, I would convict in a second. Capable of being in control of a vehicle is not the same as being in control of the vehicle. He wasn't driving it. Whether he was in the car, under the car, or looking at a picture of the car he wasn't DRIVING the car. You can't imply intent by proximity.

[Really Not All That Bright]

"Without too much difficulty"? Not even the police could get the thing to start.
What, you think they popped the hood and started checking spark plugs?

[RTFirefly]

here's what the court actually has to say about this very point: ...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.Bolding mine.

So he wasn't in control of the car, he was just in a position to exercise control without too much difficulty.

That's a big jump from 'being in physical control' per the statute. I mean, if I'm drunk as a skunk inside my own house, it's not too difficult for me to stagger out the front door and make the eight or ten steps necessary to get behind the wheel of my car. Since I always keep my keys in my pocket, I'm in a position to exercise control with little difficulty pretty much anytime I'm home and wearing pants.

I understand the outrage here but I don't understand the surprise. Courts have been ruling that various scenarios not involving actual driving constituted DUI for years. I don't know where one would read about such decisions, but suffice it to say that wherever that would be, it's surely a bit off the beaten path.

In essence, it is. "Attempted DUI" is basically what open container laws are all about. The difference is, "open bottle" laws are well-known laws of their own, whose shorthand sums up their meaning quite well. You can't have an open bottle of something alcoholic in your car. Got it. Whether it's illegal because it's "attempted DUI" or not, it's right out there as a free-standing law.

Similarly, most people know about DUI laws: you're not supposed to drive under the influence of alcohol. I don't know of anywhere it tells you that means you're not even supposed to be alone in your car with the keys in your possession if you're drunk.