Here’s the relevant statute, for the record:
Also, the definition of a motor vehicle under the MN Statutes, just for fun:
Doesn’t say the vehicle must be operational.
I know this is Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Treatment Centers, but isn’t the purpose of these exceptions to ensure that it is not possible to drive the car?
Which is the case here. It is not possible that the guy was guilty of driving the car under the influence - the damn thing wouldn’t run.
Regards,
Shodan
So he wasn’t drinking, wasn’t driving and he was on private property. What have I missed here?
-
The purpose of the exceptions is irrelevant. Judges can only adhere to the spirit of the law where it does not contradict the letter.
-
Since this was presumably a registered and insured vehicle and not obviously in such a state of disrepair as to appear undriveable, the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that it wouldn’t run.
You brought up open container laws. The guy was not charged with a violation of open container laws.
That he was in violation of Minnesota’s DUI statute?
It’s a stupid law. If a shade-tree mechanic were to have a couple of beers while tinkering with his fuel injector, under this law he could be convicted of DUI if he pushes his car six feet back into his garage. That is wrong.
That’s not the court’s problem.
No, but he’s not blaming the court, he’s blaming the legislature - “it’s a stupid law”. Which is true, of course - there should absolutely be a specific exemption as to intent in there somewhere.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing posted on the Dope this week.
“The judiciary is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state.”
The courts only purpose (problem) is to interpret the law’s intent. You have it backwards, the cops are the ones who are supposed to adhere to the letter of the law while the courts are supposed to interpret the intent of the law and the grey areas within. They are supposed to apply judgment (see that word?) in the application of said laws and in the hypothetical mentioned above and in the case from the OP the court they would have and did fail miserably.
Alan Page, another reason for hate the fucking Vikings.
Kinda depends on what your definition of “is” is, doesn’t it? Just because a vehicle was self-propelled means that it is self propelled.
You’re casually inserting a purpose here. Your definition does not lend credence to the fact that the courts “interpret intent” they just “interpret” ambiguous statutes. They especially aren’t supposed to “interpret the intent of the law” when there is a statute directly criminalizing the act in question.
It is a DUI to be in “physical control of the car”. If the finder of fact has reasonably concluded that the person in this case is in physical control of the car, the court cannot, and should not, do anything about that. They most definitely shouldn’t have a right to dismiss a conviction because of some mythical “intent” to the law that a judge wants to read into it.
here’s what the court actually has to say about this very point:
now, if you’re making constitutional claims as to the validity of the law, maybe then a court will concern itself with whether that law is constitutional, which may bring in “intent of the law” analysis. but not here.
Yep.
This is what drives me crazy on the Dope. Somebody gets bent outa shape because somebody got in trouble with the law for doing something.
Then somebody else points out that technically thats what the law says.
Does that really change the OPs position significantly? All that happens is now the OP (and many other posters) are pissed that the actual law sucks rather than the fact that someone misapplied the law.
I guess if someone was asking a specific, legal, factual question or this was a law class such observations might be useful. Otherwise, IMO, not so much.
Its like every law related complaint on the Dope has to have one of these.
Minirant over.
No, the car had been used earlier.
The information I had from someone up in the town of Crookston was that this guy had passed out in the car, with the headlights on. That was one of the reasons a neighbor noticed it, and then saw him passed out in the drivers seat, with the door hanging open, so she called 911.
which is the point of the thread and how abstract the law has been applied. He wasn’t operating the car. He wasn’t attempting to operate the car.
You don’t have to be drinking at the same time you are driving to violate the law!
This guy’s blood alcohol was 2-1/2 times the legal limit, and he had 3 empty beer cans on the floor next to him. The jury certainly found that he had been drinking ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
Only if a jury of his peers convicted him. Do you think that is likely to happen? There certainly has been no such case in Minnesota.
And the Court has some clear guidance from the Legislature that they wanted the statute interpreted this way.
The original statute said “actual physical control of the car”. After various court cases where they argued about just the sort of things people have brought up here – how close were the keys, was he in the drivers or passengers seat, etc. – the Legislature removed the word “actual” from the statute, to clarify their intent. This Supreme Court decision mentions that legislative history in this decision, to indicate that they are following the intent of this law.
“Without too much difficulty”? Not even the police could get the thing to start.
There does not seem to be any evidence that he drove the car while drunk. The hood was cold, and the car would not start. It was in his parking lot. Unless he confessed and the article doesn’t mention it, there is no evidence that he drove drunk, and substantial reason to believe that he didn’t.
It’s not like he’s passed out by the side of the road. What hapened to the presumption of innocence?
Regards,
Shodan
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.