DUI in wheelchair?

[Bijou_Drains]

There are cars now where you just have to have the key near the ignition. Are the cops going to charge those people with DUI if the key is in their pocket?

[Gfactor]

@Bijou_Drains

There are cars now where you just have to have the key near the ignition. Are the cops going to charge those people with DUI if the key is in their pocket?

Take a look at some of the citations in that old thread. That’s not a new thing, especially if you include cases where the driver was charged, but the case was thrown out on appeal.

ETA:

The Supreme Court of Ohio, for example, defined “actual physical control” as requiring that “a person be in the driver’s seat of a vehicle, behind the steering wheel, in possession of the ignition key, and in such condition that he is physically capable of starting the engine and causing the vehicle to move.” City of Cincinnati v. Kelley, 47 Ohio St.2d 94, 351 N.E.2d 85, 87- 88 (1976) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1131, 51 L.Ed.2d 554 (1977). In Alabama, “actual physical control” was initially defined as “exclusive physical power, and present ability, to operate, move, park, or direct whatever use or non-use is to be made of the motor vehicle at the moment.” Key v. Town of Kinsey, 424 So.2d 701, 703 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (citing State v. Purcell, 336 A.2d 223 (Del.Super.Ct.1975)). The court set out a three-part test for obtaining a conviction:

"1. Active or constructive possession of the vehicle’s ignition key by the person charged or, in the alternative, proof that such a key is not required for the vehicle’s operation;

2. Position of the person charged in the driver’s seat, behind the steering wheel, and in such condition that, except for the intoxication, he or she is physically capable of starting the engine and causing the vehicle to move;

3. A vehicle that is operable to some extent."

Id. at 703-04. More recently, the Alabama Supreme Court abandoned this strict, three-pronged test, adopting instead a “totality of the circumstances test” and reducing the test’s three prongs to “factors to be considered.” Cagle v. City of Gadsden, 495 So.2d 1144, 1147 (Ala.1986).

http://www.mddwi.com/lawyer-attorney-1136320.html

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The rationale for that line of cases seems to be that, even if the officer didn’t actually see you driving the vehicle down the street, you might either just have arrived after DUI, or be just about to leave to commit DUI.

[Gfactor]

That seems to be the jusification for statutes that cover being in control of a vehicle while intoxicated. They want to avoid the too-clever, you-didn’t-actually-see-the-car-moving defense. Of course, they probably catch more drivers who were just sleeping it off and were unaware of the statutory definitions than they do of the other kind.

[Bijou_Drains]

I realize DUI is a bad thing but it seems like these court rulings are just going too far. People can be charged because they might start the car?

What’s next, a guy with a knife in his pocket sitting near someone getting charged with attempted murder?

[Gfactor]

Well, as I’ve hinted, it’s not necessarily the courts that are the problem. Many DUI statutes say something like:

@Alabama

(a) A person shall not drive *or be in actual physical control *of any vehicle . . . .

@Arkansas

(a)It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this act for any person who is intoxicated to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

Clearly actual physical control includes more than driving or operating the vehicle; after all, the statue mentions both control and driving. In many cases, the courts are simply applying the laws passed by their state legislatures.

[UltraVires]

@Elendil_s_Heir

… or be just about to leave to commit DUI.

So Minority Report is here? That is pretty efficient police work to charge someone with a crime BEFORE they actually commit it.

Look, I’m all for getting drunks off of the road, but this law should be held to the same standard as all others and during the enforcement of it, constitutional rights of citizens should be protected just like anywhere else.

Another anecdotal story: A guy had just bought a brand new pickup truck, so he was sitting at his home, in his driveway listening to the stereo system. He had a case of beer beside him, but had no intention of driving anywhere; again, just playing with his new toy.

Neighbors call cops: DUI

terrible, that…

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I hear you, but that’s how the law has generally been interpreted and enforced. Vehicles and alcohol just don’t - and shouldn’t - mix.

[Bijou_Drains]

If a guy is sitting on the hood of a car drunk with the keys in his pocket is that “control” of the car? Seems pretty odd that they are saying sitting in the driver seat is their basis for “control”

[UltraVires]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Vehicles and alcohol just don’t - and shouldn’t - mix.

You guys have to quit moving the goal posts on us, though. I remember when the campaign first started, it was focused on DRUNK driving, then it moved to Drinking and Driving, and now it is simply Drinking and Vehicles?

I never bought into the hype against these laws, but it seems to be true: it is a new prohibitionist scheme. There is no other explanation when you apply it to bicycles, lawn mowers, horses, and wheelchairs.

Tell me how a man sitting in his driveway listening to a car stereo is endangering someone? I fear that the answer will be because he COULD decide to drive. But that is the same for anyone; I could be sitting in my home drinking and decide to pick up my keys, walk outside, and get in my vehicle. Where is the reasonable end point where you could say that I could NOT decide to drive?