It’s a euphemism for “get drunk”. It’s not like you have to be very drunk to be over the limit. Two glasses of wine with dinner in the back of their motor home would put some people over the limit. Should they be charged with drunk driving? Do they have intent to travel?
We don’t charge people for other crimes they might do when the police aren’t looking do we? May as well start handing out speeding tickets at random because we all might break the speed limit.
I get all that but I’m wondering how they know. It doesn’t show up on our criminal records in this state just our drivers abstract.
Depends. I’ve actually watched a decent amount of travel camping and such on youtube, and they do know the rules.
Loosely, if you are in a campsite or otherwise in a place that you are expected to spend the night, then it’s usually okay. If you are on a public road or other place where you are not expected to spend the night, then it’s usually not.
Those aren’t hard and fast rules, and vary by jurisdiction and probably by the individual judgement and temperament of the local police, but as a rule of thumb, it will usually be good enough to keep you out of trouble.
My understanding is that there is extensive records sharing under the mutual legal assistance agreements between the US and Canada, which can be accessed at the borders. Beyond that, I don’t know. Good question.
The law is very clear. If the option is between sleeping it off and driving, the law say to drive. A 10 minute drive home is better then sleeping for 6 hours. I’m glad this is settled.
This happened to a friend of mine many years ago, when DWIs had first been taken seriously. He had too much to drink at the bar so he was going to sleep it off in the back of his old 1970s blazer. Cops woke him up, tapping on the window and arrested him, even tho he was in a sleeping bag in the back of the vehicle. I believe the keys being in his pocket was “key” to the charges. It really sucked for him as he was an over the road truck driver in his 20s and nobody wanted to insure/hire him after that. It took him years to get out from under that.
I think I posted this before. Many years ago, when Canada really started enforcing this, a guy I knew started up a new business. He was located near a major border crossing and would contract with companies all over the country to supply drivers with clean records to drive the last leg into Canada for people who would not be allowed in. This enabled a driver with a record to drive from any state to the border and turn their truck over to a driver with a clean record. He would then take the load into Canada, unload and return the truck, either reloaded or empty, to the original driver.
There are vast areas of the US and Canada where no cabs are available, ever, not just closing time.
@pkbites This pretty well sums up my feelings/perspective on the topic, as influenced by the medical/ER side of things. Though I gave up imbibing long ago due to personal negative consequences like suddenly breaking out in handcuffs. I’m all for others being free to drink responsibly.
In may not be that the area has no cab service. There’s obviously a good reason why cab drivers are unenthusiastic about picking up people who are too drunk to drive themselves.
Though drinking “Wisconsinably” has its risks. Wisconsin has 41 of the 50 most drunken counties in the US. I’m quite in favor of the current laws about drunken driving.
Best to also drive as fast as you can so you reduce the time at risk 
If you have put yourself into this position of choosing to get drunk with no plan to get home, then I suppose you just have to to take your chances and do your best not to kill anyone.
But, what is very clear is that it is you that chose to put yourself into that position, so taking some responsibility for the consequences of your actions shouldn’t be so upsetting.
Better yet, just run into the first guardrail that you see, that way, you only put yourself at risk, and not the other drivers on the road.
You too seem to be framing this as though those questioning the law are concerned about “justice for drunk people”. But it’s not a question of that - it’s about creating the correct incentives to minimize drunk driving for the protection of everyone.
That’s obviously the point that @sitchensis is sarcastically making.
And that’s the problem: when the law makes the penalty for sleeping in your car about the same as a DUI, there’s no incentive to do the former. May as well drive.
That is some seriously limited and poor critical risk assessment going on there IMO.
People are generally terrible at risk assessment. It’s a good idea to give them good choice options following bad choices, rather than limiting their options.
On the part of the legal system? Because that’s where the incentive to drive is coming from.
Don’t get drunk if you can’t get home safely and legally. That’s the option.
Yes, Captain Hindsight. But if you have somewhat screwed up and are drunk with no way to get home safely, the law is giving you an incentive to really screw up and drive home rather than take the better option under the circumstances and sleep in the back seat.
Again, if there is research that indicates that excluding this possibility creates a prior incentive that reduces the incidence of drunk driving overall, I’m opened minded to that. But please don’t keep characterizing this as a plea for lenience for drunks. It’s not. It’s questioning whether the law is providing the best incentives to keep drunk drivers off the road for the benefit of everyone.
“Screwed up”? It’s an accident that they got drunk?
Captain Hindsight is wrong: Captain Foresight is more like it.