# Minnesota Supreme court rules DUI possible in non-working car **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 25, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403 "2010-01-25T19:32:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/21 "2010-01-25T21:03:14Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > 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. Bingo. Save the DUI arrests for someone who is actually _driving_. I don’t care if you’re found in a parkway rest stop, buckled in at the drivers seat of a vehicle with the engine running looking to sleep it off – if you’re not actively driving at that moment, then there is no way you should be booked on this. Unfortunately this had become too much of a cash cow for states to tone back the laws to a reasonable level. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/22 "2010-01-25T21:04:19Z")
I’m also a rabidly Anti Drunk Driver. Thanks largely to the SDMB I’ve found myself becoming increasingly uncomfortable with both the expanded definitions of drunk “driving” as well as the ever expanding scope of what’s permissible when setting up DWI checkpoints. I’m going to lose sleep over it any day now, I’m sure. Snark aside; I don’t know where to draw the line but I do believe we’ve crossed it somewhere back aways. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/23 "2010-01-25T21:04:36Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > 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? It was years ago, so I really can’t remember the follow up details. I’m pretty sure that nothing ever came of it though, although the story lives on in legend in our family. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/24 "2010-01-25T21:52:02Z")
I have a real problem with punishing people who are trying to do the right thing, which is what this current trend is doing. I have heard of a case where a guy was put out of a bar when it closed, realized he was too drunk to drive, didn’t have a phone and/or couldn’t find someone to pick him up, so he decided to sleep it off in his car, rather than lie on the sidewalk in the middle of winter. So as not to be accused of DUI, he threw his keys as far as he could into an adjacent field and went to sleep. A few hours later, a cop tapped on his window and arrested him for DUI. Having failed to get a cab, he would have been better off to just drive home and take his chances, thereby endangering others. By sleeping it off, he got just as severe a penalty, and by spending hours in car as opposed to the minutes it would have taken him to drive home, he made it almost certain that he’d be caught for his “crime” of sleeping it off. The courts are, IMHO, making bad public policy and encouraging drunk people to just drive home instead of waiting until they are sober enough to drive. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/25 "2010-01-25T21:59:25Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Fleck had 3 priors and he was found in his car at his apartment. He was doing one of two things: > > 1. He was trying to drive somewhere and passed out before he could start the car. > 2. He just came back from somewhere(drunk) and passed out before he could get out of his car. Meh…for all of the drunks I know, I’d choose a different option: He was completely futzed and had no idea where his apartment might be but hey imma gon get in my car now an…zzzzzz… Maybe he was going to drive or maybe he drove there drunk, but I am not convinced those are the only two possibilities. I can’t believe I am standing up for a serial drinker, either. Eep! ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/26 "2010-01-25T22:04:17Z")
A friend of mine had something similar happen to him. He was in college in Fargo and living in a dorm. There was drinking, in which he participated, going on in his dorm room. There was a conflict/fight of some kind and he wanted to get out of the room and end his night. So, he went to the parking lot and got in the BACK seat of his car to sleep. He was woken up by a police officer knocking on the window. He was arrested for DWI and convicted. He had no priors. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/27 "2010-01-25T22:16:05Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I have a real problem with punishing people who are trying to do the right thing, which is what this current trend is doing. > > I have heard of a case where a guy was put out of a bar when it closed, realized he was too drunk to drive, didn’t have a phone and/or couldn’t find someone to pick him up, so he decided to sleep it off in his car, rather than lie on the sidewalk in the middle of winter. So as not to be accused of DUI, he threw his keys as far as he could into an adjacent field and went to sleep. > > A few hours later, a cop tapped on his window and arrested him for DUI. > > Having failed to get a cab, he would have been better off to just drive home and take his chances, thereby endangering others. By sleeping it off, he got just as severe a penalty, and by spending hours in car as opposed to the minutes it would have taken him to drive home, he made it almost certain that he’d be caught for his “crime” of sleeping it off. > > The courts are, IMHO, making bad public policy and encouraging drunk people to just drive home instead of waiting until they are sober enough to drive. This pretty much sums things up from my point of view. These stories of people being arrested for sleeping in or near cars really contributes to more drinking and driving. It’s aggressively stupid policy. One can be sure that the proportion of people arrested for sleeping drunk in cars far outweighs the proportion of people arrested driving drunk. This essentially tells drunks to hurry up and drive home because you’re getting a DUI if you don’t. Additionally, the laws crafted in order to allow great latitude and discretion to police officers are particularly upsetting because the police have shown repeatedly that they are not capable of handling said responsibility rationally and judiciously. I have to ask: Why was the cop in the apartment buildings parking lot? Is patrolling parking lots on private land something that is part of his job? Did someone call and request his presence there? Perhaps if the police have time to spend patrolling parking lots on a weeknight they simply have too much staff and too large a budget. I suppose the innocent until proven guilty doctrine is dead and buried. It’s _Minority Report_ in action, without less confidence in the courts ability to read peoples minds. ---
**Author:** ![Recliner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e57/32.png) [@Recliner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recliner)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/28 "2010-01-26T00:23:33Z")
> [@Wheelz](#): > > 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. Bingo. The laws are intended to prevent people nitpicking about whether they were actually driving; to arrest people for OUI when they’re purely sitting in a car – and more importantly, haven’t demonstrated any intention to drive, or of HAVING driven – is punishing people severely for doign nothing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/29 "2010-01-26T00:55:52Z")
> [@Recliner](#): > > Bingo. The laws are intended to prevent people nitpicking about whether they were actually driving; to arrest people for OUI when they’re purely sitting in a car – and more importantly, haven’t demonstrated any intention to drive, or of HAVING driven – is punishing people severely for doign nothing wrong. I’d rather have the people nitpicking their way out of tickets than the police nitpicking their way into them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/30 "2010-01-26T01:25:30Z")
Driving under the influence is a clearly defined act. Thinking about driving under the influence is not. The precedent that this sets is enormous. The court system is drunk on power. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/31 "2010-01-26T01:34:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Driving under the influence is a clearly defined act. Thinking about driving under the influence is not. The precedent that this sets is enormous. > > The court system is drunk on power. Yeah, I was thinking more about what Mr. Excellent said about drunks being in close proximity to cars, and I have decided that is just ridiculous. At any given time, a drunk can go from standing around innocently to hopping in a car and driving away, in about a 6 second time span. But we don’t arrest drunk people for simply standing near a car. Yet. And let’s really focus in on the details of the case. The keys weren’t even in the ignition. There is no indication that the man intended to actually drive. The law is about _driving_ while intoxicated…or is it not? Where is Bricker to break down the 411 on this. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/32 "2010-01-26T01:35:49Z")
It seems that the weak point in this conviction is the conclusion that he was in control of the car. The car could not be driven; in what meaningful sense was he “controlling” it? Yes, it’s possible that he could have awakened, put the car in neutral, and pushed it out into the road. But this same potentiality exists if he’d been sleeping in his bed upstairs – it’s possible that he could have walked downstairs and pushed the car. If he’d taken a cab, it would have been possible for him to overpower the driver and take control of the vehicle. How is sitting in the back of a drivable car _less_ dangerous than sitting in the front of one that can’t move? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/33 "2010-01-26T01:44:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Who are you? Cosmo Kramer? **Statute**! It’s not a sculpture of intoxication. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/34 "2010-01-26T01:48:07Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > Who are you? Cosmo Kramer? **Statute**! It’s not a sculpture of intoxication. That’s true, he wasn’t stoned. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/35 "2010-01-26T01:54:24Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > Unfortunately this had become too much of a cash cow for states to tone back the laws to a reasonable level. Sending someone to prison for four years is hardly a way for the state to make money. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/36 "2010-01-26T02:13:08Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Sending someone to prison for four years is hardly a way for the state to make money. As I understand it, the local municipalities get the fine money. The state gets (and pays for) the prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/37 "2010-01-26T02:25:46Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > I came across this [article on Fark](http://thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp), 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 read the opinion from the supreme court. In it there is a case where a passenger was arrested and convicted, and the conviction upheld, because the passenger was drunk and alone. The car was driven by her son, who was giving her a ride home, skidded and ended up in a ditch. The car was inoperable without the use of a tow truck which the son had gone to call. The court held that since the drunk women was in the car with keys in her pocket and all it would take was a tow truck to make the car operable, she was guilty of drunk driving. The appeals court overturned her conviction, but the state supreme court reversed. I honestly don’t know what could have happened to avoid conviction. If she had stood outside in the snow, she still would have been in control of the car. What is even stranger, is that the law had been specifically amended to make it more expansive and more applicable to situations such as this. And efforts to tighten the law to make such things less likely had been defeated. Being a drunk passenger is apparently a specific exemption-but there had better be a sober driver in the car. Talk about a dirty trick-offer to drive someone who has been drinking home, get halfway there and get out of the car and call the cops. Doesn’t have to be their car and the car doesn’t have to be operable, just leave a set of keys in the glove box. Great way to get back at someone… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/38 "2010-01-26T04:34:13Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I read the opinion from the supreme court. In it there is a case where a passenger was arrested and convicted, and the conviction upheld, because the passenger was drunk and alone. The car was driven by her son, who was giving her a ride home, skidded and ended up in a ditch. The car was inoperable without the use of a tow truck which the son had gone to call. The court held that since the drunk women was in the car with keys in her pocket and all it would take was a tow truck to make the car operable, she was guilty of drunk driving. The appeals court overturned her conviction, but the state supreme court reversed. > > I honestly don’t know what could have happened to avoid conviction. If she had stood outside in the snow, she still would have been in control of the car. What is even stranger, is that the law had been specifically amended to make it more expansive and more applicable to situations such as this. And efforts to tighten the law to make such things less likely had been defeated. > > Being a drunk passenger is apparently a specific exemption-but there had better be a sober driver in the car. Talk about a dirty trick-offer to drive someone who has been drinking home, get halfway there and get out of the car and call the cops. Doesn’t have to be their car and the car doesn’t have to be operable, just leave a set of keys in the glove box. Great way to get back at someone… So now we have multiple layers of stupid. Not only did the arresting officer exercise poor judgment but the Judge certified it. Karma, you know what to do. Pee on his bowl of cheerios and make it public. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/39 "2010-01-26T06:56:31Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > I honestly don’t know what could have happened to avoid conviction. How about not getting so drunk that she has to call her son to come pick her up and drive her home? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/40 "2010-01-26T07:03:09Z")
> [@Hal\_Briston](#): > > Bingo. Save the DUI arrests for someone who is actually _driving_. I don’t care if you’re found in a parkway rest stop, buckled in at the drivers seat of a vehicle with the engine running looking to sleep it off – if you’re not actively driving at that moment, then there is no way you should be booked on this. So you would not charge all the drunks found in their cars that have run off the road into a ditch, or run into a railing, or went off the road and crashed into a tree in somebody’s yard? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=3)