And failing an impairment test because you can’t remember or count how many prescription pills taken isn’t going to fly very far. There are pill containers for just such an occasion.
I know that in New Jersey if you are sitting in the car with the keys in the ignition, even if you only listening to the radio or trying to keep warm (as was the case with my friend’s son), you are guilty while driving impaired. The kid lost his license for six months.
Of course, he later wiped out on his motorcycle while very drunk, damned near killed himself, and his now a permanent pedestrian. Sheer stupidity.
Sorry, but the blanket statement “Driving under the influence of Xanax is still DUI” struck me as odd, since a billion people take prescriptions and it’s not DUI. Your qualifier about impairment makes more sense.
There are three elements that must be proven in a DUI case: operation, impairment and intoxication.
Nitpick: while you don’t have to be read your rights until you’re arrested, whether or not your Miranda rights attach depends on where you are.
Miranda has nothing to do with arrest. Is the person a suspect? Are they being questioned (beyond normal biographical data)? If the question to either is no then there does not need to be Miranda. I have arrested many without ever giving Miranda warnings. They are not needed if there isn’t going to be any questioning. Miranda has nothing to do with giving samples in a DUI case. That is covered under implied consent laws which have held up under court scrutiny.
Right. Miranda warnings aren’t required when the cops arrest you. They are required before the cops question you. This is a huge misconception that people have because on TV the cops always, always Mirandize arrestees as part of their end-zone dance. It’s up there with the notion that cops are required to always tell the truth, and so you can find out of someone is an undercover cop by asking them if they’re a cop.
I’m guessing it imagines on what the prescription is. If that were the case, then people on prescription pain killers like Vicodin and Percodan could get away with driving. Xanax can cause drowsiness, dizziness, it can mess up your coordination, etc. It’s definitely not something you should take if you plan on driving.
Is this legal?
I just bought an electronic stud-finder. It triggers on my dick. My answer to the OP is “my dick triggers a stud-finder. Does yours???”, therefore the answer to your OP question is “No. You’re illegally in possession of a tiny dick. Let go of the dick, and step away from the computer!”
I didn’t say they had anything to do with arrest. I said they do not have to be read until you are arrested, since any pre-arrest questioning is unlikely to be custodial in nature.
If the story checks out, and he was on his premises, in his own vehicle then despite whatever local laws MAY apply, the state would have a hard time getting anything serious to stick.
I’d find a travesty against liberty if you’d be charged for sitting in your car having a beer.
And what qualifications do you have that made you come to that conclusion? I know that in my state most MV laws are not enforceable on private property. DUI is one of those laws that is enforceable. A 10 second search made it clear that it is enforceable in Florida too.
But anyway, go back to the OP. even in his mangled way it was clear that the police saw him driving on the road then caught up to him. Reaching home base is not a defense.
The OP never returned. A guest of the state now?
His claim appears to be that he hadn’t been drinking while he was driving. His claim is that he drove home with the beer in his car and then, after he parked in his driveway, he started drinking beer in his car. He seems to think that this means he can’t be charged with DUI.
The only Walmart I haven’t been able to by beer in is in Bentonville AR. Walmart’s home is a dry county.
Edit, that was twenty years ago so it may have changed.
Yep, Florida!
You may be surprised to hear this, but “travesty against liberty” is not the applicable legal standard.
Clearly not. Fortunately in Texas, it has to be in a public place. I imagine there’d be an uproar if the government violated people’s basic rights in such a manner.
What is a “basic right”? Is it a fundamental right? I know of no legal authority holding that consuming alcohol in a running car is a fundamental right, even in one’s own driveway.
In a free country, it’s a fundamental right to do whatever you please especially on your own property as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. That’s the whole concept of freedom. The idea that someone who owns a large amount of land could get a DWI for driving their truck or riding a four-wheeler around and drinking is absolutely baffling. However, we’re getting away from the topic, whether it’s actually serious or not.