I doubt I’d have anything to worry about. I doubt my friend would take me to court over such an incidence, and I doubt a judge or jury would take such a charge seriously. I’d feel quite justified in flattening the tires if I had to.
Last hijack, I promise.
I also promise to use the word ‘incidence’ properly.
Deflating the tires was not an option, The Tooth. The cars were being returned by valet parking attendants (could they have been responsible too? I doubt they knew that he was a bit tipsy. I only knew because I knew the guy and had seen him drinking.). And yes, even if I hit him, I doubt that he would have actually pressed charges, but do I have to take that risk? Especially when, to escape any legal responsibility, I could have done nothing at all, simply walked back into the reception and left a half hour later…
I didn’t know Sua of the legal doctrine of an intervening clause. Thank you for bringing that up. I would have been in favor of booking him on something (although I though the prosecutors went too far with the charges), but, if the law is as you state it, I would then agree with you. Thanks for the info.
Zev Steinhardt
A few years ago a business owner in Ontario was successfully sued by a woman who had badly injured herself driving drunk, her suit being based on the rationale that she had gotten too drunk at the company Christmas party to drive and he had not taken the keys from her. When his lawyer argued that they had tried to take her keys and that doing any more than they had would have been assault and/or theft, the judge rejected the argument and awarded her a bazillion dollars.
the kicker was; she left the employee party AND WENT TO ANOTHER BAR AND CONTINUED DRINKING. Only THEN did she go and wreck her car.
You will not find a more vehement opponent of drunk driving than yours truly. Drunk driving is the absolute, far-and-away #1 cause of fatal accidents; take away drunk driving and you would reduce automobile fatalities by more than 35 percent. I’m all for roadside drunk driving checks because it’s literally carnage out there.
However, I think this case in the OP, and the Ontario Idiot case, demonstrate an alarming convergence of justifiable fury at drunk driving along with the modern refusal to accept individual responsibility and a “let’s punish SOMEONE” mentality. Powell is a scapegoat for a POLICE screwup. He’s getting railroaded.
IMO, it seems to me that Powell’s defense is that Pangle was sober, or apparently so, at the time he dropped him off at his car. Powell should not be held responsible for his inability to predict that Pangle would go buy a six pack first thing after they separate paths. If Pangle was not sober at the time, then I can definitely see a good case for Powell facilitating a DUI. DUI is generally a recklessness offense, so his knowledge of the highly probable outcome combined with deliberate action taken which directly leads to that outcome is enough for accessory liability.
We can make up facts (there’s a lot of that going on in this thread) that either vindicate or condemn Powell. That’s fine, but let’s be clear that’s we’re doing so.
IANAL, RickJay, but the case you cited was a civil case. Here (with Powell), we are talking about criminal charges. Secondly, you’re talking about a completely different country with regard to the Ontario case (the U.S. hasn’t annexed Ontario yet…).
Zev Steinhardt
I agree that Powell could be charged with facilitating a DUI, though I’m not sure that such a crime exists.
KellyM, your wording is a little ambiguous. When you write of the “highly probable outcome” are you referring to just the DUI, or the deaths as well? If the former, absolutely. If the latter, we disagree.
Analogize this to X, who buys a gun for someone who cannot legally buy a gun, Y. X knows Y is in a troubled marriage.
Soon afterwards, Y shoots a woman she catches in bed with her husband. X is criminally liable for the illegal transfer of the gun, but does X bear any criminal responsibility for the death of the woman?
Sua
Personally this is why I don’t answer the phone at 2:00 AM.
Anyway, I think it very much depends on the police instructions. If Pangle was being released on OR then Powell can’t really be responsible. As already mentioned, what if he had taken the bus? The fact that they dragged Powell in makes me suspect they expected him to be responsible for Pangle. Did the cops say “He’s still drunk, don’t let him drive.”? We need to know more about what happened at the cop shop before he left.
BTW, around here that car would not have been sitting by the side of the road. The cops would have had it towed pretty much immediatly and you’d have to go through a big deal to get the car back(and I’m pretty sure no towing company would have released a DUI-towed car to an obviously drunk person). Why leave the guy’s car abandoned by the side of the road?
CarnalK, you cookeze, and duckster (I think that’s it) all have made variations on the same point - if the police told Powell not to let Pangle drive, then Powell should be charged (Duckster recounts being told by the police that was the law.)
That’s a pretty frightening concept. By what right or authority do the police determine what your legal obligations are and impose new obligations on you under penalty of criminal sanctions?
Sua
I don’t think that the police have the authority to impose obligations on you, but if the police told Powell not to let Pangle drive, then it’s going to be tough to convince me, at least, that Powell had no idea that Pangle was drunk. And that might make a very big difference.
I have a different analogy. X gives Y a bowling ball, knowing that Y is going to drop it from an overpass. It’s possible (maybe even likely) that Y will do this without hurting anyone. However, the ball hits a car killing the driver.Does X have any criminal responsibilty for the death or only for the reckless endangerment or for nothing? (serious question, I’m not sure of the answer)
Sua, Doreen’s example using the bowling ball is better. Under her hypothetical, there probably is liability as an aider and abettor. I think it’s a mistake to try and use the wilful, wanton, reckless standard because it is pretty high. If the cops actually turned over they keys and gave directions back to the car, it’d be almost impossible to meet. Unless . . .
Perhaps the guy was sloppy drunk. If he had a blood alcohol concentration of .23 at the time of the accident, he was either practically unconscious when arrested or he had several drinks after he was released. Most people with a BAC this high are literally “blind drunk” and are completely out of control. Assuming he had stopped drinking three hours before the accident, his BAC must have peaked at well above .25 which would have probably made him nearly unconcious when arrested.
If he was falling-down drunk and the friend took him back to his car anyway, maybe the friend should be prosecuted. The police officer who decided to release a falling-down drunk and return his keys can sit right next to the friend at the defense table.
Actually, Truth I was just about to post that doreen’s last post was a stumper when I saw your post on preview. doreen, you is pretty smart. 
And truth, you’re also right. The prosecutor is still wrong to go for a recklessness theory here. Abetting liability makes much more sense, and also helps to limit the scope of this business (by making it clearer you have to help commit the crime, rather than merely fail to stop the crime- which is what bothered Zev in the first place).
So, I revise. Had the prosecutor brought these charges under an aiding and abetting theory, I would probably agree, depending, of course, on the actual facts. As the case now stands, it is a horrible prosecution.
Sua
doreen:
This is not a good analogy. First of all, it would be impossible to convince someone that you have a good reason to drop a bowling ball off an overpass, but it is possible to convince someone that they should let you drive home. Second, you are forgetting about Z. You know, the guy who caught Y dropping bowling balls earlier that day. Z put the bowling ball in a locked box and then restrained Y. But then for some reason Z gave Y the location of the box and the key to open it, and let him loose.
There is no way Powell should be charged, no matter what the circumstances. Well, maybe if Powell was the one that called the police and wanted to come pick up his friend, and voluntarily took responsibility. But that is not what happened.
If Pangle was not obviously drunk, then it is likely that he could convince Powell to drive him to his car. The fact that the police gave Pangle his keys and the location of his car would make it even easier to convince Powell that he was no longer dangerously drunk. Why would the police be so reckless as to give a dangerous drunk his keys and the location of his car?
If Pangle was obviously drunk, then the responsibility lies with the police. They should not have given him his keys and the location of his car. There is no way they should be able to do so, and then call someone in the middle of the night and force him to take responsibility for the whole situation! This case is ridiculous no matter what the circumstances. I think it is very frightening that anyone would defend this prosecution.
CarnalK:
Seriously.
I meant the DUI. The deaths still might fall under the wire for recklessness, but I don’t see it as at all clear. It’s been a while since I looked at this stuff, and the rules for culpability in accessory liability with respect to the elements of the underlying offense are more complicated than I can remember right now. So I don’t remember if he needs to have knowledge that the deaths were reasonably certain to have occured to be culpable, or if it’s enough that he be reckless toward the possibility. If the former, clearly there’s no offense; if the latter, there might be, although there’s good arguments either way.
If the prosecution’s law of the case is recklessness rather than accessory, then the prosecutor is a complete dolt and the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the state cannot hope to prove the elements of any offense. Powell was under no greater duty to prevent Pringle from driving while intoxicated than any other citizen would be. He’s not a law enforcement officer with an affirmative duty to intercede in criminal conduct, just an average Joe. The idea that the police can “deputize” someone like this, by calling them up and handing someone who belongs in jail over to them, and thus making them subject to law enforcement duties, is absurd.
In any case, I suspect this will be one of those tough cases that is bound to make bad law. Hopefully he will be acquitted at trial, so that the appellate courts don’t see it and therefore don’t get a chance to make matters worse by coming up with a really stupid rule that will confound law students for the next twenty years.
I wondered the same thing. I don’t see how the police can hold me responsible for the continued detention (which is what it would come down to if Pangle insisted on driving) of someone whom they have released. In order for me to have that authority I would have to be sworn in and given the trappings of office such as a badge and maybe a nightstick in case Pangle got obstreperous. I’m pretty sure that the police who are manning a station don’t have the authority to deputize individuals on an ad hoc basis in order to give someone a ride.
There is either a lot more to the story that the cite didn’t give or the whole story is a lot of baloney.
Here is a follow up on this case
Acquittal on manslaughter, hung jury on other counts, which prosecutor intends to retry.
Bolding mine.
Personally, I think this makes it crystal clear. Pangle chose to go drink some more, therefore, Powell is not liable for any of it.
I wholeheartedly agree, Monster. Hell, I wonder if there was any evidence that Pangle was still legally drunk when Powell dropped him off at his car - I don’t think it is police procedure to give someone a Breathalyzer when letting them out of jail.
Sua
This is more complicated then I realized from the brief TV news accounts I saw yesterday (re the partial acquital/hung jury).
I’d say the cops screwed up. They should have kept Pangle overnight, and/or they should have towed his car. Had they done both things or either, by the time he got out / reclaimed his car, he’d have been sober, and if he started drinking and driving, it would have been a new bender and a new DUI offense.
Because they let him out prematurely, and because they let him reunite with his car prematurely, his subsequent actions can be seen as a continuation of the same drunken spree. Having arrested him for DUI, I would say that the police had an obligation to keep him in custody until he sobered up, and/or to keep him from reclaiming his car until he sobered up.
A distinct possibility: he was sober by the time they released him. The problem was (a) the police let him reunite with his car immediately upon release, and (b) it was still the same night. Had it been “the morning after” he might have gone home to bed, but as it was still “the night before,” he resumed drinking. And as his car was available, he also resumed driving. (Sounds as though the guy was an alcoholic or on the road to being one.)
This is exactly what the police proceedures used in other jurisdictions (tow car; keep drunk in jail overnight) are designed to prevent. It’s the police who are at fault. It seems quite likely that charging Powell (the friend) was a tactic to divert attention from the police role.
The “overkill” level of the charges vs. Powell were, I would say, business as usual on the part of the US criminal justice system: normal behavior seems to be, always charge everyone with the most serious possible charges.
Zev, another possible action at the wedding would have been to get others involved, assuming that other wedded guests were still present, as in, “Yo, folks, I don’t think X is fit to drive because “blank” – what does everyone else think?” For “blank” supply your reasons, either the amt you’d seen him consume, or the behavior he was exhibiting.
Oops, I mean, “other weddING guests” – does not matter if they were married or single!