Okay, I did some reading and apparently it’s not quite as bad as I described it. From what I understand, you want to make sure your keys are not in the ignition and you are not in the driver’s seat, preferrably in the back. This would probably cover the RV owner, since he’s in his pyjamas and sleeping in a proper bed in the back.
All that I read can be found by googling “DUI parked car”. Answers seem to be pretty universal to all states.
No it’s not. By that logic, half the questions posed on this board shouldn’t be asked.
Which is pretty mind numbingly short sighted. Quite frankly it is stupid.
I have been drunk once, and then I could just walk back to the motel room. However let’s say I was drunk, and needed to sleep it off. I sleep it off in the parking lot I could get a DUI. What’s my legal motivation then to just not try to drive home, and sleep it off there?
None, that’s what. A guy with a gun could shoot someone, better charge all gun owners with murder. A hair pin could pick a lock, better charge any woman with a hair do for breaking and entering. Don’t want them actually having a chance to commit their crimes, right?
Agreed. And maybe we should move the thread to GD since it seems to have gone there.
Your first paragraph is my biggest problem with charging people passed out in a car with DUI. If I’m drunk and staggering back to my car, I would think, “Better not pass out here because surely someone will come by in the next few hours. I’d better chance it and try to drive home.”
If anything, we should REWARD the person who passes out in his car from making a responsible decision not to drive in that condition.
Giving a guy working on his car in his driveway a DUI is also absurd. COULD he decide to give it a test drive after fixing it? Sure. But by that logic anyone drunk in their homes should be given a DUI because they could always grab the car keys and head out for a drive.
I seem to recall that what started this slippery slope was evidentiary problems when nobody could testify to seeing the perp drive. Let’s say a cop pulls up to a smoldering wreck of a car with a drunk guy standing beside it with blood on his face: obviously a one car accident with the man driving. The problem was that for a DUI charge, the cop couldn’t testify that he actually saw the man driving the car, even though it was an obvious inference. Some courts were (IMO, wrongfully) throwing these cases out, so legislatures started enacting this “substantial control” language in the statutes that have been ripe for abuse.
How do you figure? LOTS of drunk drivers pass out in their cars while the car is running, or after they have already driven drunk to wherever they are. I don’t think its fair for the police officer to assume that a person made a wise choice to not drive drunk, but rather that the assumption is that they already did.
Define lots. Lots of people speed, but does every driver’s license come with a speeding ticket, or do you actually have to commit the crime first?
this is bizarre. in that case you breath test them, the car didn’t drive it itself it’s obvious they have to have done a DUI. If someone is sleeping locked in their vehicle over the limit they obviously have not harmed anyone, and unless theres a witness that saw they drive in that state to where they are they should not be charged with anything.
If the law doesn’t say this, it should and I’m glad that basically in Australia thats what it does say.
I think the defendant should have a right to put on his case if the officer thinks he drove to that location. Was the car in a bar parking lot? That seems a reasonable inference that the patron had too much in the bar and was sleeping it off.
Is the car in the middle of a major intersection with the ignition off? Looks like he drove there.
Was it excessively hot or cold that day? That seems to me a reason for the jury to believe that the driver wanted the heat or a/c on as he slept it off.
It’s just my opinion that the law has lost sight that the primary reason to punish people for this violation is that they actually DROVE a vehicle while intoxicated and thereby endangered other motorists, and that should be a necessary element of proof.
In the UK, if conducted completely outwith public highways, I have always understood that you are not breaking the law (I believe - not giving legal advice!)
The defendant will have ample opportunity to make his case to a judge and jury. 
The problem with drunks sleeping it off in cars is two fold. One, they were drunk when they pulled over. Second, and this is the one most people don’t appreciate; they are very likely to still be drunk when they wake up. Not only drunk, but tired, dehydrated, disoriented AND behind the wheel of a car ready to take off in a moments notice! :eek:
So since prohibition failed, what do you propose drunks sleeping it off do?
Edit: I see you’re talking about them pulling over. I think we’re talking about ones sleeping it off in the bar parking lot.
Your motivation is that you don’t want to hit somebody while you’re drunk.
Isn’t that simple enough?
As to whether its legal to drive drunk on private property - while I’m not qualified or knowledgable enough to offer a good opinion.
I seem to remember that in New Zealand at least, you wouldn’t be charged with drunk driving but you might / can be charged with being unfit to operate heavy machinery. (or something along the same lines)
From what I recall, the basic thrust is that private property isn’t a “do what you like” - but rather, you still have a responsibility not to put yourself and others at risk with stupid behaviour.
IIRC the keywords in Canada’s DUI law are “in control” of a motor vehicle. Being inside the car and in possession of the means to drive it means you can be charged. People do alls sorts of stupid things when heavily drunk - they wake up, or half awake, they start up the car and drive off. If they are in the back seat, they could climb into the front.
I beliueve you will find that a large number of US states have similar criteria. There was a thread a while ago about someone being charged for going out to the car and opening it to retreive a CD from the console. In car, with keys…
Where things get technical is what constitutes possession of keys. If you open the trunk, toss the keys in, then climb into the back seat - are you still in possession? If the keys are hung on a tree 10 feet away? Hidden behind a rock?
This is why the rules are so strict. The police do not want to have to say “he was sitting behind the wheel of a running vehicle, passed out, but it was in park and on private property and so we could do nothing.” The only question is where to draw the line, and the line has gotten steadily tighter.
Better hope you don’t have one of the new cars that start with a button press as long as the key is within 10 feet or so. Assuming you were inside the vehicle (or it was unlocked) you wouldn’t even need physical access to the key. For that matter, if there were two intoxicated people sleeping in the car (passenger and back seats), they could probably charge both of them.
Yes, I have one of those.
Isuppose the question would then be “who had the key”? If it’ in the trunk, then the question will be one that makes the lawyers rich… Technology vs. law.
I see the logic, and I’m sure you do, that lawmakers decided “we don’t have to want to wait until the person moves out onto the public road and is actually driving”. The devil is in the details. Where do you draw the line? The simplest line is - don’t be anywhere near the car with a key if you are drunk. Whether you agree with this rule or not is a GD question. “What is the rule right now?” is a GQ question. Obviously the courts have not yet ruled that this is an infringement on personal privacy, despite decades of opportunity to do so.
Times change. Back in the early 80’s I recall one Jackson Hole bar had a drive through take-out window. I was through there 10 years ago and it was gone.
I can not answer for other states. In New Jersey DWI is enforceable on private property.
I recently watched an episode of Mythbusters where they were testing the myth that driving with a really full bladder is as bad as driving drunk. They had to get Adam to just under the legal driving limit, but not over it, even though he was driving on a track they had set up, not on a public road. In California, it is not legal to drive drunk on private property.
An ex-cop (retired) friend of mine told me that, here in Minnesota, driving any motorized vehicle anywhere while over the limit qualifies for a DUI no matter if the motor is gasoline-, electric- or rocket-powered.
I wonder if you had a wind-up skateboard…?