So I’m watching the Simpson’s episode “Co-Dependents Day” in which Marge and Homer discover the delights of Wine. They proceed to become booze-'em buddies. Homer drives drunk on the way back from Oktoberfest and crashes the car. He proceeds to switch places with unconscious Marge who gets a DUI.
This presented the following question:
What if two people are driving in a car and both are drunk, they get into an accident and get themselves out of the car before the police or any witnesses arrive. Once the police arrive neither party will confess or incriminate the other party as being the driver. What kind of charges would there be?
Well, the police may charge them with all sorts of things depending on the circumstances of the accident. DUI, drunk and disorderly, reckless endangerment, open container, etc.
What they would be convicted of at trial is another matter entirely. If it can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt which of them was driving, a conviction on any charge relating to the operation of the vehicle is unlikely if not impossible.
For the sake of argument lets assume there is no open container, and no evidence of any wrongdoing besides a pair of tipsy people and an undrivable car.
It depends upon what state you’re in. In TN, for example, if you loan someone your car, and after they get the car from you, they go to a bar, knock back a couple of cold ones, get behind the wheel and get busted, then not only will they get a DUI, but you’ll get one as well, even if you had no way of knowing that the person was going to be driving drunk.
In the scenario you describe, both of them would most likely be charged with DUI, and without Lionel Hutz to defend them, I’d say that both of them would go up the river.
I’m inclined to think this is what would happen. However I also think it’d be a indictment of the legal system. What would the legal basis for a charge be?
How can someone who is not anywhere near a vehicle posibly be convicted of operaing it? Can you cite this law?
How does the prosecution, in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of who was behind the wheel, convict both of them? “Oh well, we know one of them had to have been driving, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, so just to be on the safe side convict them both.”
I could also see the prosecution charging them jointly and perhaps even arguing some sort of concert of action theory: http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/33C2d80.htm. I’m not sure this would get them very far.
I can’t find anything with detailed info on the law, but I’ve been told this by cops.
Actually, it would depend upon how the law is written and if the prosecutor chose to go after them. There was a case about 10 years ago where a city in TN got in trouble because they had a number of cases in which they only prosecuted for public drunkness, when they should have gone for DUI. The one case that I remember is that a guy was pulled over and jumped out of his van before the officer walked up. The guy was the only one in the vehicle, but since he wasn’t behind the wheel, the officer charged him with PD, this got them in trouble with the state, since by law, all DUI’s are state prosecution charges and it was felt that the officer did the PD to keep it (and the revenues from the fines, etc.) in the city’s coffers. The argument that the state made was that the law clearly stated that in this kind of situation, the perp should be charged with DUI and not PD.
Well, if you can find a site the TN criminal code on it, I’ll dig around, but so far I haven’t found any sites out there with the actual law on it. All I’ve found are vague descriptions which are generic to any state.
According to Lambo’s source and the statutes upon which it relies, this part (especially the bolded portion) is incorrect. You would have to know they were likely to drive drunk when you entrusted them with the car.
Of course, what’s the legal definition of “know they were likely to drive drunk”? It could be a loose as, “If you’ve ever known this person to have a drink” or it might be as specific as “You knew that he was borrowing your car to go to a bar.” IANAL, but I can see how it could go either way. Then there’s also the willingness of the prosecutor to charge someone. FTR, I’ve not heard of anyone being prosecuted under the statute, only that it was possible. Teach me to listen to cops.
Here in Washington state, I would have to prove which person was driving to charge him or her with DUI. In fact, even one of them states that he or she was the driver, I would still have to establish this with some evidence in addition to their admission (this is a special corpus delecti rule that applies to DUIs here - I don’t know if it applies in other states). I would look for things such as: are they the registered owner of the car, do they have the keys, is the driver’s seat and mirrors adjusted to fit that person, etc.
In the situation described in the OP, I would look for the same evidence to establish who was driving. Of course, drunks are usually pretty bad at lying and they will give themselves away with a bit of questioning. If I can’t prove who was driving, no one would be charged with anything. I’ve had it happen to me before.
Thalion, thanks for the answer. I’m pretty cynical about the justice system when it comes to driving laws…cops tend to act with special zeal there. The volume of violations and the whole “privledge” argument tends to make it impossible to contest those type of things.
Based on my many years of dilligent Law and Order studies I’m wondering if there’s some “conspiracy” or “hindering prosecution” charge they could hit the drivers with to back into a conviction. Living off the “we know a crime was committed and someone has to be held accountable” rationale.