I came across this article on Fark, and it struck a chord with me.
To summarize, a man was drunk and sleeping in his own parking lot in his car. The car was inoperable. The cop tried the key, the car wouldn’t start. The keys were not even in the ignition, they were resting on the console. The hood of the car was cool.
I think the cops were wrong to arrest the man. The judge disagrees with me.
One time my mom was arrested for drunk driving. My mom is a sweetheart who would never hurt anyone. She was drunk, riding home from a party with my dad. They ran out of gas and pulled over to the side of the road. My dad left to buy gas from the gas station that was literally just a few yards away. My mom waited in the passenger side. She was arrested for drunk driving. She actually went to jail for the first and last time in her life.
Do you think the man should have been arrested? I hope this post is coherent, I’m trying to start this thread from work.
I think it was certainly appropriate for Fleck to be arrested, and convicted, and for his conviction to be upheld. Per the linked article, Fleck believed that the car he was sitting in was actually operable. Whether it was or not - and it seems it wasn’t - Fleck had attempted to place himself in a position to control a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over twice the legal limit in his jurisdiction. The factual impossibility of actually driving that vehicle doesn’t seem important - it’s common to convict people of attempted crimes even when those crimes would be impossible to complete successfully. If carefully plan my attempt to shoot you, hide in your bushes, and am foiled only by a defective firing pin - that’s attempted first degree murder, at least in most jurisdictions.
Some behaviors are so dangerous that we don’t want people even in dangerous proximity to engaging in them. Drunk people have no business in cars - the danger if they manage to start the things is simply too high.
I am rabidly against drunk driving, and have little to no sympathy for people who get DUIs…
But in the case of this Fleck guy and your mom…both stories are pretty insane and I would take the side of the defendant. I mean really, they both were doing the best thing they could do to avoid drinking and driving, or even being drunk in public.
Driving drunk is a low-life thing to do, of course. Scum of the earth stuff. And like Mr. Excellent said, there may be something to be said for just keeping drunk folks away from dangerous equipment. At the same time, over zealous cops make me nervous. Very nervous.
I respectfully disagree. The OP’s mom certainly did the right thing - she was drunk, so she got someone (her husband) to give her a ride home. She did everything she could to avoid being in control of a motor vehicle while drunk.
Fleck, though, didn’t do everything he could have. Knowing that he didn’t have someone to give him a ride home, he could have done as many drunks before him have done: called a cab, and slept it off at home.
Nzinga, you might want to ask a moderator to amend your title to reflect the fact that it is the Minnesota Supreme Court of that handed down the decision.
Actually, Fleck was at home – or in the parking lot of his home. I don’t understand why he was in the car rather than in his apartment.
The SC ruled correctly: the charge was that he was in control of the car while drunk. The fact that his car could not start is irrelevant, especially since (as far as we can tell) he didn’t know that. The only thing that disturbs me is the mandatory sentence: the court should be able to impose a lesser sentence for a technical DUI like this, compared with a case where a person is actually driving dangerously or has caused an accident.
But there is a difference between a crime of attempted murder and attempted DUI – to the best of my knowledge, attempted DUI isn’t actually a crime.
The statue seems to say that one must be “in physical control” of a vehicle while drunk to be guilty. It does not appear that attempting to be in physical control is part of the statue.
I hope nobody here ever allows their children to sit in the driver’s seat of a car, even if the keys are not in the car. Under the logic of this ruling, the fact that the child could not possibly operate the car is not a valid defense to a charge of driving without a license.
At least in Illinois, the laws are worded in ways that make it possible to be arrested for DUI if you are within some ill-defined proximity to your vehicle and its keys while drunk. This is intended to give enough leeway to the cops that they don’t actually need to witness the act of drunk driving (e.g. your car is in a ditch and you’re staggering around next to it when they arrive).
So one can see the reasoning behind such provisions, but I’d have to agree that, when it’s clear the “driver” has not actually been driving impaired, and is unlikely to do so, a cop who makes a DUI arrest just because he can is being a total jackass.
I don’t have a problem with the decision, but I find it interesting that the author of the opinion is Alan Page, a former member of the Minnesota Vikings “Purple People Eaters” defense.
I’d appreciate if you would elaborate on this. While he may have “intended” to DUI, under the only facts I see he had no opportunity to do so. But you believe his intent to do so (or at least the cop’s report of his drunken statements) is sufficient?
What if the car didn’t have an engine, or was up on blocks, yet in his drunken stupor he thought it was operable?
I’ve long opposed what I’ve considered a progression WRT upholding DUI convictions for people who were not operating moving vehicles. I think it horrible that someone who is drunk can choose to sleep it off in his car instead of driving, and get arrested for DUI.
Yes, DUI is a horrible offense. But in order to protect what I consider to be crucial freedoms, unfortunately, I feel the onus generally ought to be on the cops to have to catch someone “in the act.” Along those lines, I’ll suggest that perhaps he should have been punushed more severely for his 3 prior DUIs - probably shouldn’t even have still had a valid license.
Before too long we’re gonna hear about some guy who has an old car seat on his front porch, and gets arrested for sitting on it while drunk!
Well… yeah. And I know you’re not being entirely serious with this remark, but a guy being blitzed enough to think an inoperable car was operable isn’t reason to charge him with a DUI. I’ve been drunk enough to think my sofa was a space ship. So what? I was never in danger of crashing my rocket into anything. Basically, this ruling translates, “You’ve had DUIs before, so we’re going to go ahead and give you another one, even though you were not driving under the influence, and couldn’t have if you tried. You would have, so enjoy.”
Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things:
He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car.
He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car.
The fact that he was over the limit after sleeping for hours just shows how drunk he was to start with. Any story that he was sleeping it off in his car rather than his apartment doesn’t pass the sniff test.
As for the OP’s mom, that was nuts. The car is out of gas and a sober operator is getting gas thus leaving open the possibility that she was not driving.
To the OP: was she only arrested or was she also convicted?
Or:
3) he had had a fight with his SO, and went out to his car to sleep.
4) his roomie had someone over, so he slept in the car.
5) the apartment had been painted, and the fumes were bothering him.
How many more you want?
I’ve got no problem with this guy being charged with public intoxication
I have had something like 3 tickets for busting a red light. This morning, I drove to work. I went through several intersections. Perhaps I should have been pulled over and ticketed for running a red light, because I was in fact driving my car, and the only thing preventing me from running a red light was the fact that all the lights were green.
