# 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:** 3\ **Page:** 6
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/101 "2010-01-27T23:17:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Does “physical control” mean “physical control?” Whether or not sitting in the driver’s seat without the engine running constitutes physical control, pushing a car is OBVIOUSLY exerting physical control. > > And yes, the tipsy shadetree mechanic would indeed have to be arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and sentenced under a stupid law. Whatever point you may have isn’t getting through the chaff of minutiae you’re using to argue for it. > > If I were on the jury of the case linked to in the OP, given what is known, there’s no way I could vote for conviction. I do not believe that it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is capable of being in physical control of a non-operational vehicle. > > However, if there were some circumstantial evidence that the man had operated or made the car move, I would convict in a second. Capable of being in control of a vehicle is not the same as being in control of the vehicle. He wasn’t driving it. Whether he was in the car, under the car, or looking at a picture of the car he wasn’t DRIVING the car. You can’t imply intent by proximity. ---
**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 28, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/102 "2010-01-28T13:56:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “Without too much difficulty”? Not even the police could get the thing to start. What, you think they popped the hood and started checking spark plugs? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403/103 "2010-01-28T18:25:16Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > here’s what the court actually has to say about this very point: > > > [@](#): > > > > …a jury could reasonably find that Fleck, having been found intoxicated, alone, and sleeping behind the wheel of his own vehicle with the keys in the vehicle’s console, was in **a position to** exercise dominion or control over the vehicle and that he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger. Bolding mine. So he wasn’t in control of the car, he was just in _a position to_ exercise control without too much difficulty. That’s a big jump from ‘being in physical control’ per the statute. I mean, if I’m drunk as a skunk inside my own house, it’s not too difficult for me to stagger out the front door and make the eight or ten steps necessary to get behind the wheel of my car. Since I always keep my keys in my pocket, I’m in a position to exercise control with little difficulty pretty much anytime I’m home and wearing pants. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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_. I don’t know where one would read about such decisions, but suffice it to say that wherever that would be, it’s surely a bit off the beaten path. [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:67, topic:526403”] In essence, it is. “Attempted DUI” is basically what open container laws are all about. [/QUOTE] The difference is, “open bottle” laws are well-known laws of their own, whose shorthand sums up their meaning quite well. You can’t have an open bottle of something alcoholic in your car. Got it. Whether it’s illegal because it’s “attempted DUI” or not, it’s right out there as a free-standing law. Similarly, most people know about DUI laws: you’re not supposed to drive under the influence of alcohol. I don’t know of anywhere it tells you that means you’re not even supposed to be alone in your car with the keys in your possession if you’re drunk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-dui-possible-in-non-working-car/526403.md?page=5)