Are there “intent to drive” laws in the States?
Here in Sydney, if I drunkenly walk towards the driver’s door of my car, keys in hand, I can be busted for drink driving, potentially even if I tell the officer I was going to get an item from my car.
Yes, there are. I’m not sure what they are called, but it varies from state to state and the case law is littered with different and contradictory opinions from different jurisdictions as to what would constitute intent.
IIRC, if your car was in your driveway and you walked to it drunk to retrieve and item, you would be on better footing that if it was parked in a bar parking lot.
YMMV, buy I remember before I left West Virginia, that a guy had just bought a new truck with a custom stereo system. He was sitting in his driveway drinking beer and listening to the stereo system, with nary an intent to drive it anywhere.
A neighbor complained about the noise and he was arrested and charged with DUI. I never heard how the case turned out…
I’ve heard stuff like “if the keys are in the ignition, it’s DUI” whether the person is driving or not. No clue as to the truthness, especially because that piece of info given to me was paired with an anecdote about someone’s friend getting busted for DUI while sleeping it off in his car after a party - he wasn’t going anywhere, the car wasn’t on, but he did stick his keys in the ignition, guess to not lose them.
In Kansas, a 6 pack with only 5 beers in it is considered an open container, even if it’s not accessible, like in the trunk.
That’s taking it a bit far, I think.
I heard the same thing when I was younger and I was later told that it was an urban legend. I don’t know of any state that has such a bright line rule as that.
Some friends of mine were sitting in their car drinking some beer and were approched my an officer. The driver mentioned that the keys were in his pocket and the cop left them alone.
Non-informational anecdote…
Once, about 2 dozen of us bought tix to a rock concert in another city, and we chartered a bus to take us all there. Before leaving, we asked the driver if we’d be allowed to drink and 
some other stuff. The driver said he didn’t care what happened back there, with one exception. “If we pass another bus, do not moon the other bus.”
In a nutshell, open container laws are a lazy way to address a symptom rather than a problem.
We just got open container laws in Montana last year. So now, for example, we have these silly situations:
You come over to my house for dinner and bring a bottle of Scotch. You have one drink from it before dinner. When you leave, I tell you to take the bottle home with you, since I don’t drink Scotch. You’re driving a hatchback, so you have no trunk. Even though you’d probably blow a 0.02 by this time, it’s illegal to take your leftovers home.
A friend at work tells me about this wonderful wine that he tried last night. He gives me the bottle, with two glasses’ worth left in it. It is perfectly legal for me to drink the whole bottle and drive home, but illegal to set the bottle on the seat next to me and drive home with a 0.0% BAC.
It’s fine for you to drink a couple of beers in a bar and drive home after the alcohol has a chance to percolate into your bloodstream (if you’re my size, that would put you at about 0.06% BAC). It is, however, illegal to drink one beer as you drive home, which would put your BAC at 0.03% max–likely less than that because the full effect wouldn’t have hit your bloodstream until after you got home.
Basically, open container laws have nothing whatsoever to do with actual driving impairment. All they do is provide police with reasonable cause to pull you over, and an excuse to arrest someone who is safely driving with a legal amount of alcohol in their blood.
NOTE: Lest my comments be misconstrued, I have never had a drink from an alcoholic beverage while driving, although I have transported open containers. I did once get a very expensive ticket because my idiot cousin from another state opened a can of beer while I was driving and took a drink where a cop could see him. Even though I had a 0.0% BAC and a perfectly clean driving record, I got dinged for it.
The law really has little effect on my personal behavior (I no longer drive a hatchback, so I have a legal place to stow open containers), but I think it’s a phenomenally stupid law.
As I suspected, not an accurate statement of California law.
Here are the relevant California statutes:
So, the scheme is as follows: You can’t have an open container in your posession as either a driver or passenger. If you have an open container present in a vehicle, it must be in the trunk, unless you don’t HAVE a trunk, in which case it can’t be in any part of the passenger compartment, including things like glove boxes. But none of this applies to taxis and limos.
Here is the opinion of a criminal defense attorney regarding the law of the state of Florida:
From Law Office of Nasreen Wilkes, P.L.. She does say “may,” which means it is fact dependent. I do know, however, that I have seen more than one case reported where the issue was litigated and the decision on appeal was against the driver. I’ll see if I can chase one of those down (likely a California case, given that I saw it and I doubt I was paying attention to Rhode Island appellate case reports 
).
If you don’t have a trunk, (hatchback, minivan, SUV) you can still put it in the way back part of the car, out of reach of driver or passengers.
Um, avoiding the “debate” about whether such laws have value, here is Montana’s Open Container law. You will note your assertion about your hatchback is not accurate.
So it merely needs to be behind the last upright seat (subsection 2©), or a locked glove compartment (subsection 2(a)).
Really? I’m sure swerving is probable cause, even though it’s perfectly legal.
I know it specifically says that cars without trunks are six (not quite seven) kinds of fucked, but where does it say I can actually keep an open container in my trunk? If you don’t have a trunk, but you have a locking glove compartment, can you keep it in there if it’s locked?
Isn’t swerving considered reckless driving. 'Round here, you can get a reckless driving ticket for making you’re wheels spin.
Bolding mine.
I tried to find the relevant law, but I started getting a headache. Hopefully DSYoungEsq will be back in to clarify the issue.
:smack: Thanks.
If it’s not, surely crossing the center line is (especially if it’s a solid yellow), not using blinkers to change lanes, driving in the curb lane etc…
From:From
In Alaska:
*Article 03. RECKLESS AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING
Sec. 28.35.040. Reckless driving.
(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in the state in a manner that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to a person or to property is guilty of reckless driving. A substantial and unjustifiable risk is a risk of such a nature and degree that the conscious disregard of it or a failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.*
I recall from reading the Trooper reports from our local website Sitnews that swerving never gets the person a reckless as well as a DUI.
I clearly remember this although Im not sifting through these reports.
Right, but as her use of the word “may” implies, there is no hard and fast rule.
In fact, if I am lying on my bed in my house, with the car keys on the dresser, with me about ready to pass out because of a .24 BAC, I can still jump up, grab the keys and hop in the driver’s seat of the car.
Do I then have constructive control of the vehicle, meaning that the police could, if tipped, arrest me in my bed for DUI?
Tonedef was not talking about a party bus.
Tonedef was talking about a “booze bus” which is a colloquialism for a random breath testing stop. Essentially the cops set up an area where they slow traffic and randomly stop drivers. They then submit to a breath test through the driver’s window with the hand-held testing unit. If the driver passes, on their way and they’re free to go. If they fail, then they’re taken to the booze bus for booking. It’s essentially a mobile police station. I believe they may even have one of the blood testing kits inside, so if you blow a positive but have an excuse (mouthwash, or whatever) then they can do the re-test without having to ship you off to a hospital.
Essentially Tonedef is saying they’ve been through an RBT check with everyone in the car (presumably except the driver) rollocking drunk, and as long as the driver has passed the blow test, the cops didn’t give a toss about the booze-artists in the passenger and back seats.
Any exhibition of driving that may indicate impairment, such as swerving, following too close, failure to stay in your own lane, etc. is reason enough for an officer to pull a driver over and investigate further. However, absent an open container law, possession of an open container alone is not.