# 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:** 4
**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, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/61 "2010-01-27T06:02:19Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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. Great except he WASN’T DRIVING on public property. Are they going to respond if someone calls in a neighbor they see walking past their car in the garage with a beer. That’s a violation of open container laws. ---
**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, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/62 "2010-01-27T06:12:45Z")
> [@Iridescent\_Orb](#): > > 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… That applies to people sleeping in their own home and then going out to Taco Bell because of the munchies. The most that should be done is arrest for public intoxication because no other crime was being committed at the time of arrest. ---
**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, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/63 "2010-01-27T07:00:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Great except he WASN’T DRIVING on public property. And he wasn’t charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of “being in physical control” of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. ---
**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, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/64 "2010-01-27T09:15:31Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And he wasn’t charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of “being in physical control” of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. And how was he physically controlling it? did the car have ass-assist stearing? His conviction was nothing but an abuse of the English language. Fyi, I’m controlling my car through mental telepathy as I type this. I’ve commanded the car not to move in the garage with the engine off. ---
**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 27, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/65 "2010-01-27T14:27:33Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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. I know you are going to think I’m playing dumb (a lot of folks think that) but this is a serious question. Is it common for a car to not start after sitting for two weeks? Also, shouldn’t the arresting officer had at least see if the car would even start before he made the arrest? He had the forethought to test the heat of the hood…why not, upon finding the hood completely cool, test to see that the car works? ---
**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, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/66 "2010-01-27T14:49:27Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > His conviction was nothing but an abuse of the English language. Fyi, I’m controlling my car through mental telepathy as I type this. I’ve commanded the car not to move in the garage with the engine off. Fine. Convince a jury of that, and an Appeals Court, and then the Supreme Court – like he did. Then we can all bow to your mental telepathy. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/67 "2010-01-27T15:48:36Z")
> [@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. In essence, it is. “Attempted DUI” is basically what open container laws are all about. Think about this one: You have dinner at a friend’s house. You have nothing alcoholic to drink. As you’re leaving, friend mentions that he has a open bottle of whiskey left over from a party and he doesn’t like whiskey. He gives you the bottle. You drop it on the passenger seat and drive home. Your blood alcohol is zero. You haven’t had a thing to drink. There’s only an ounce or so of whiskey in the bottle–not enough to take you over the blood alcohol limit for DUI. You’re not in violation of any DUI law and you couldn’t violate a DUI law without going somewhere and drinking something. You can still be charged with an open container violation because there’s an unsealed bottle within reach of the driver’s seat and you MIGHT be tempted to take a drink from it and then go get more bottles and drink from them. As much as I dislike the precedent set by the case the OP described, there’s plenty of other equally stupid alcohol-related legal precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/68 "2010-01-27T16:09:11Z")
> [@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). How is this law any different from simply making it illegal to be drunk? If you drink in your own house, odds are quite good that you’re in the proximity of both your keys and your car. Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there. ---
**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 27, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/69 "2010-01-27T16:24:02Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > …Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there. But what if someone else’s car is at this other location? What if the alcohol makes you mug them and steal their car? What if the alcohol makes you hotwire a car that is parked outside the bar? These rulings are just too stupid for words. :rolleyes: ---
**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 27, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/70 "2010-01-27T16:26:35Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > How is this law any different from simply making it illegal to be drunk? If you drink in your own house, odds are quite good that you’re in the proximity of both your keys and your car. Your only real option is to go somewhere else to drink, without taking your car, and spend the night there. Not to mention, bars. Or house parties. I mean, it can get ridiculous. To repeat my question before, can someone _please_ tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/71 "2010-01-27T16:30:50Z")
I understand the outrage here but I don’t understand the surprise. Courts have been ruling that various scenarios not involving actual driving constituted DUI for _years_. In Florida, for example, under existing case law you are only safe from prosecution when sleeping in your car under two scenarios: the keys are not physically inside the car and not within reach from the interior of the vehicle (so tossing them under the car is no good); or the keys are in the locked trunk and the vehicle has no interior trunk release. The latter presents rather obvious problems, given that it won’t be any easier to retrieve your keys from an impenetrable trunk even when sober. > [@](#): > > To repeat my question before, can someone please tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks. Common, no. Eminently plausible, yes. Vehicle electrical systems draw a small amount of current whether or not the vehicle is running - to keep the clock and certain radio functions operating, for example - and a bad or otherwise discharged battery can be drained enough to require a jump after two weeks. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/72 "2010-01-27T16:33:08Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Not to mention, bars. Or house parties. I mean, it can get ridiculous. > > To repeat my question before, can someone _please_ tell me if it is common for a car not to start after sitting for 2 weeks. Not really. The only thing that would commonly cause that is a weak/old battery, and/or a car with a high current drain when off. The engine itself should handle 2 weeks with no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/73 "2010-01-27T16:34:25Z")
Well, barring an oil leak or something. ---
**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 27, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/74 "2010-01-27T16:51:02Z")
Thanks. I am pretty sure that car wasn’t even working at all, and the cop knew it and is an asshole. Pretty sure. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/75 "2010-01-27T17:27:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Great except he WASN’T DRIVING on public property. Are they going to respond if someone calls in a neighbor they see walking past their car in the garage with a beer. That’s a violation of open container laws. open container laws don’t extend to private property ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/76 "2010-01-27T17:46:04Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > 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. That would violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. If the instructions from the judge clearly stated that you were not allowed to take the defendant’s refusal to testify against him in any way, would you still do so? ETA: Wait, You say you _have_ been on a jury and convicted based on the defendant’s refusal to testify? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/77 "2010-01-27T18:00:34Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Contra, I re-read it and still do not see the questions I raised answered there. You’ve read it twice and still don’t know the answer to this question? – > [@](#): > > Was this a jury trial? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/78 "2010-01-27T18:02:02Z")
This, and the OP’s mom’s experience, is a reflection of the very sad state that we have gotten to. The saying ‘the law is a ass’ comes to mind, and innocent people are once again thrown in jail for the actions of people who don’t seem to exercise humanity towards a fellow human. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/79 "2010-01-27T18:15:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > open container laws don’t extend to private property Depends on the state. In at least a few, open container laws _do_ extend to non-licensed publicly accessible property regardless of whether or not it is private - so the front yard of your house is fine, but the common area in front of your apartment may not be. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/80 "2010-01-27T18:21:09Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > And he wasn’t charged with DRIVING. He was charged (and convicted by a jury) of “being in physical control” of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Ahem. From the first sentence of the linked article. \*The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the **drunk driving conviction** of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=5)