Ammo For Sale

« « Animal Rights | Home | NRA Motion for time in the Chicago Gun Case » »

One would think you can’t get a DUI without the D

But, apparently, you can be ticketed for being hammered in an inoperable vehicle.

26 Responses to “One would think you can’t get a DUI without the D”

  1. bwm Says:

    Just to further solidify my belief that DUI charges have very little to do with public safety.

  2. bwm Says:

    And no, I haven’t ever been arrested for DUI.

  3. lance Says:

    He was not only ticketed, but it was his 3rd offense which raised the penalty to a 4-year felony. I’ve got no sympathy for drunk drivers (I’ve arrested dozens of them), but this opens up a whole can of worms. What if someone falls asleep in a car up on blocks, or in a disabled motor home?

  4. TomcatsHanger Says:

    I wonder if trailers are considered vehicles? They move as much.

    Drinking at the trailier park will never be the same.

  5. Robert Says:

    Soon it will reach the point when they say that you can’t be withing 100 feet of your car if you are drunk and have the keys on you. Then it will be increased to 500 feet, and so on….

  6. John Smith Says:

    This has precedence for other cases too. It is declaring that merely the intent to do something illegal is equal to actually doing it. Say if one day I got really stupid and tried to kill someone but the gun jammed. I would therefore in the state of minnesota able to tried for murder.

  7. chris Says:

    This opinion was written by Justice Alan Page, who was, in a prior life, a defensive lineman for the Vikings.

    Similar to our own Juvenile Court Judge Tim Irwin, who played in the NFL for 20 years (mostly for the Vikings) as an offensive lineman.

    FWIW, I certainly disagree with Justice Page on this nonsensical opinion.

  8. John Smith Says:

    Had no idea he was a ex football player. Of course I guess this proves that football induced brain trauma theories are true after all.

  9. Stuart_the_Viking Says:

    When I was younger, I (stupidly) found myself in the position of being drunk at closing time on more than a few occasions. Instead of driving home, I opted for sleeping it off in the only safe, dry place that was available, my car. I would think that would be better than trying to drive home. Apparently, in their drive to see who can punish the not-so-guilty, the Minnesota Supreme Court in all their knowlege and wisdom decides that that option as illegal as just drunkenly driving home.

    On January 3, 2010, A close friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. I wish that drunk would have slept it off in his car rather than driving that night. If this decision becomes the precident that all future cases are judged by, why would anyone bother.

    s

  10. Wolfwood Says:

    I think the issue here is whether the defendant knew that the vehicle was inoperable. If he had gotten wasted, tried to start the car and failed, then just put the keys in the console then he’s probably guilty. Generally, factual impossibility isn’t a defense to an attempted crime. If, on the other hand, the engine was out of the car, then he would probably be okay.

    IANAL. TINLA.

  11. yj Says:

    So if I pass out in my Race Car Bed I can go to jail?

  12. HerrBGone Says:

    By this logic (I use the term loosely) if I have a rifle in the safe and a towel in the bathroom I have the potential to unlock the safe, take out the rifle, wrap the towel around my head and initiate sudden jihad syndrome. Thus I should preemptively be sent to Gitmo without having actually, um, you know, broken any laws?

    Madison, Jefferson and the rest would be so proud of how much “Progress” we’ve made as a society over the last couple of hundred years.

    *eyeroll*

  13. Kristopher Says:

    Bad ruling. The crime hadn’t been committed yet. Drunk asshole got lucky, yes.

    And then met a judge who was willing to mangle the law to jail him anyway. This judge scares me more than another drunk driver.

  14. straightarrow Says:

    I’m with Kristopher

  15. B Smith Says:

    Robert: MADD, having achieved its original goals of criminalizing DUI and setting a legal standard for inebriation, must now either lobby to progressively lower that standard and push for ever-more aggressive enforcement, or declare victory and disband. Can you actually see them giving up the power and money they’ve amassed over the years? Riiight.
    Candy Lightner, founder of MADD, left the organization back in 1983, saying it had,”become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned.” In the past decade, MADD has raked in over $10M just in government funding alone. It’s a huge bureaucracy, and it hasn’t been about public safety for a long, long time.

  16. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    B Smith nailed. My cop brother said during his criminology degree AND during cop training the theme was universal: MADD is as much about drunk driving prevention as AHSA is about hunting and shooting.

    Is drunk driving a problem? Sure, but the universal .08 standard is about generating revenue for the legal system, and it’s been shown that something like 80%+ of all DUI fatalities are repeat offenders with habitual drinking problems who are over 0.15 at the time of the offense. But thanks to MADD the guy having a couple glasses of wine over a 2 hour dinner needs to be nervous, even though he’s less a danger to society than the stone sober Starbucks Fuckyouchino sipping fatass soccer mom putting on her makeup while she talks on the cell phone and yells at her nosepicking backseat brats.

  17. straightarrow Says:

    Damn! I agree on something with PGP.

  18. chris Says:

    Here in NC, the statute requires that the vehicle must be either running or in motion.

  19. Standard Mischief Says:

    # Kristopher Says:

    …This judge scares me more than another drunk driver.

    True, but there’s more than just one judge to blame here.

    First off, a proper Grand Jury could have declined to allow the case to proceed, but “Grand Juries” are more about a fishing expedition for the Prosecutor nowadays rather than a check and balance.

    Then there is the Judge for his original trial, who failed to dismiss the case if appropriate and failed to impanel a fully informed jury.

    And then of course, you get to any middle Judges and then to this Supreme ass-hole here.

    The final check and balance is a pardon from Governor Tim Pawlenty, but he probably won’t touch this one because it could backfire if the guy ever had another DUI again.

    The system is broke.

  20. Wolfwood Says:

    One problem is the article is unclear: was the defendant convicted of DUI or attempted DUI? From what little is in the article, I think a reasonable jury could find him guilty of the attempt.

  21. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Damn! I agree on something with PGP.

    Matter and anti matter? 🙂 I dare say we’d agree on more than we’d disagree on were we to share a fine single malt and a microbrew.

  22. straightarrow Says:

    could I have a whiskey instead?

  23. Skipelec Says:

    I think Kalifornia has a law about ‘drunk in or about a vehical’, you don’t even have to be in it.

  24. Will Says:

    Here in CA, you can get a DUI for anything that moves. Horses, tractors, atv’s, lawnmowers, go-karts, bicycles, roller skates, and I would not be surprised about Big Wheels and rocking chairs. I think they can even bust you on private property, like driving around in your back pasture, when miles away from anyone.

  25. straightarrow Says:

    I don’t know about Ca. Will, but the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a DUI conviction on private property and the man was even in his p/u.

  26. straightarrow Says:

    not, dammit, NOT in his p/u. Can you be ticketed for TUI. T=Typing