# 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:** 3
**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, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/41 "2010-01-26T07:07:42Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > How about not getting so drunk that she has to call her son to come pick her up and drive her home? So now it’s illegal to get drunk? Not that I understand the thrill of it but I don’t see how the responsible use of a designated driver falls into the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/42 "2010-01-26T07:42:53Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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? The way that its always been handled in my neck of the woods is that you would be charged if it is a “reaosnable assumption” (I won’t go into the legal definition of this) that you had been driving drunk…i.e - if you were found blind drunk in a layby with a hot engine, you would be charged - if you were found asleep in the back seat with a cold engine in the pub parking lot, not so much (but the copper might take you home if he was in a good mood) ---
**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, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/43 "2010-01-26T10:00:59Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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? Better those folks get off than innocents getting busted who don’t deserve it. That’s the entire foundation of our judicial system after all. ---
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/44 "2010-01-26T14:11:55Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > - if you were found blind drunk in a layby with a hot engine, you would be charged - if you were found asleep in the back seat with a cold engine in the pub parking lot, not so much Yeah, in the article, it states that the cop touched the hood and it was cool. What is the point of checking that the hood is cool, if you are going to arrest him anyways? He was clearly just _hoping_ it was hot so that the charges would be that much stickier. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/45 "2010-01-26T14:33:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. Bingo. Nothing chaps my hide more than judges that refuse to do an ounce of “judging”. Yeah, we don’t want rampant judicial activism where they just do what the hell they feel like regardless of what the law says, but on the otherhand a little use of actual judgement to keep the law from a being a total ass would be nice. ---
**Author:** ![BomTek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bomtek/32/21364_2.png) [@BomTek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BomTek)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/46 "2010-01-26T16:33:54Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > 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. Cite (for the part that I bolded)? I agree with the gyst of your post, **Omni** , and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people in positions of power in Minnesota, but there’s no way I can accept this statement without a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/47 "2010-01-26T17:04:04Z")
I am sure glad I don’t live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can’t imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judge, which I would never rely on to do the right thing. Did the guy get up and testify he was not driving but sleeping only? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/48 "2010-01-26T17:38:29Z")
> [@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. Word. This decision flies in the face of common sense in any number of ways. Say you’ve driven to a bar and gotten drunk, and you know you need to sober up. But if you stay in the bar, you know it’ll be hard to resist the temptation to have another drink or two. So you go outside, but it’s winter. Where do you go? Your car: it’s either there, or back into the bar, or into some other bar, or stand out in the cold. The car wins. And then you can get busted for DUI, when you weren’t even driving, and had no intention of driving. And based on instances cited in this thread, that would be true even if you never got behind the wheel, but instead sat in the passenger seat, or maybe even curled up in the back seat. (Lord help you if you turned on the ignition to run the heater. That would remove all doubt about your intention to drive drunk.) And here we thought ‘DUI’ stood for **driving** while intoxicated. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/49 "2010-01-26T17:55:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And here we thought ‘DUI’ stood for **driving** while intoxicated. Well, maybe not ALL of us thought that! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/50 "2010-01-26T18:04:40Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > I am sure glad I don’t live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can’t imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judge, which I would never rely on to do the right thing. Is there any chance that you could be bothered to read the cited article? ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/51 "2010-01-26T22:51:29Z")
> [@BomTek](#): > > Cite (for the part that I bolded)? > I agree with the gyst of your post, **Omni** , and I agree that there are a lot of stupid people in positions of power in Minnesota, but there’s no way I can accept this statement without a cite. No such cite exists, obviously, but I think we can all agree that a person sleeping in a parked car for perhaps 4 hours has a higher likelihood of randomly crossing paths with a cop than a person driving home drunk for perhaps 10 minutes. Assuming you’re not so drunk that you’re driving like Stevie Wonder a cop probably isn’t going to take notice of you driving home and even if you are swerving more times than not you’ll not pass a cop anyways. If you’re sleeping in a parked car, trying to make the best of a bad situation, it becomes exponentially more likely that a cop will see you during his beat with every passing minute. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/52 "2010-01-26T23:03:38Z")
This seems a bit like automatically giving a ticket to a guy who buys a hot sports car. You can call it" intent to speed’. I am sure stats could justify that ticket too. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/53 "2010-01-26T23:43:45Z")
Contra, I re-read it and still do not see the questions I raised answered there. I am assuming he acted like a drunk, looked like a drunk, would not speak, and then got convicted if a jury did do this. I bet he never testified, which is a sure way I’d convict (and have on a jury). If the accused does not want to say why he was there I could only assume it was to drive too. I would have issue with there being any probable cause to wake up someone in his own property, legally parked, however. ---
**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 27, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/54 "2010-01-27T02:36:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. He is one of the most respected people on the Mn Supreme Court. Certainly better, IMO, than any of the appointees of the last 10 years. He was the lead on the Court for the Franken-Coleman Senate recount trials. He & his wife also run a scholarship program for disadvantaged youth. And I would certainly say that he and his fellow “Purple People Eaters” did better defense work than we saw in last Sundays’ game!!! ---
**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 27, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/55 "2010-01-27T03:32:28Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > 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. The cops were there because another resident had called them, to report that she had seen a person was passed out in a car, with the drivers door hanging open. > [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > I am sure glad I don’t live in that awful state. Was this a jury trial? I can’t imagine a jury convicting a person under these circumstances, I bet it was a judge No, it was a jury that heard all the testimony and convicted him. > [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Did the guy get up and testify he was not driving but sleeping only? Among the various stories he told the police at the time of his arrest were: - that he had come down from his apartment to get some item out of his car, but then fell asleep before he could get back to his apartment (but he did not have any item with him) - that he had come down from his air-conditioned bedroom just to sit in the vehicle, and fell asleep there. But I don’t think he actually testified to any of these stories at his trial. As far as the car being **inoperable** , that is questionable. The only evidence on that is that after sitting in the impound lot for 2-1/2 weeks, it did not start. The vehicle had been used previously, before his arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/56 "2010-01-27T04:23:43Z")
I don’t understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/57 "2010-01-27T04:36:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress. because DUI laws extend past public roadways in some states? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/58 "2010-01-27T05:40:07Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > because DUI laws extend past public roadways in some states? that’s a scary thought. ---
**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 27, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/59 "2010-01-27T05:48:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t understand how someone can be arrested while on private property (the apartment complex parking lot) for anything related to a DUI unless it is directly related to a pursuit in progress. How about if you beat your spouse while on private property (inside your own house)? How about if you commit a murder on private property – can the police come onto private property and arrest you? Of course they can! Our criminal laws apply to all the land within our country, public or private. ---
**Author:** ![Iridescent\_Orb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@Iridescent\_Orb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iridescent_Orb)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/60 "2010-01-27T05:53:28Z")
One of the problems with letting people “sleep it off” in their cars is they frequently wake up still intoxicated and attempt drive home. If someone goes to sleep at three times the legal limit, they often feel pretty sober when they wake up at two times the legal limit… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=4)