FARK.com: (666824) Man feels too drunk to drive, so he parks car to sleep it off. Cop busts him for DWI anyway

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Man feels too drunk to drive, so he parks car to sleep it off. Cop busts him for DWI anyway (boston.com)		613
		More: Asinine

• • •

26696 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2003 at 11:07 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/666824

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

613 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 12:37:32 PM

I sit in my car all the time, listening to the radio, fixing it, cleaning it, etc.

While you're drunk?

Robobagpiper		2003-09-29 12:39:08 PM

He says he had pulled over to sleep it off, but how do you know for sure?

So much for the presumption of innocence.

Frustrated that this is indeed the presumption in the courts, law-and-order thugs in our legislatures write presumption of guilt into the law, by any circuitous means they can.

MyrnaMinkoff		2003-09-29 12:39:10 PM

MyrnaMinkoff that analogy doesn't work, unless the person walked out of the store with the watch and then came back with it. Because the guy drove while he was drunk. At that point he's comitted the crime, it's just as "irreversible" as any other crime, he just didn't cause any damage.

Sidi, again, that was directed at the "ticket drivers asleep in their cars because they may drive" crowd. Not specifically referring to this case. And I'm even being generous there, because if a driver goes to their car to sleep, use the phone, whatever, they're not even intending to commit a crime.

Check Will Not Be Honored		2003-09-29 12:39:56 PM

reminds me of high school.

signs in bathrooms:

No smoking. Holding lit cigarette constitutes smoking.

however the law defines driving, if it's defined the law is clear. it's our job to change the laws we don't like.

01SSJay		2003-09-29 12:41:03 PM

I always have a few beers when cleaning my car, detailing it, working on it, etc.

weemill		2003-09-29 12:41:29 PM

2003-09-29 12:37:32 PM DeanMoriarty

I sit in my car all the time, listening to the radio, fixing it, cleaning it, etc.

While you're drunk?

Sometimes. Why not kick back a couple beers, or a nice frozen daquiri (thank god for Drive thru daquiri shops in New Orleans!)? My BAL would certainly, after a few beers be enough for me to get ticketed.

Round-Sparrow		2003-09-29 12:42:02 PM

Ok, what are the rules?

We live in a motorhome and are often drinking with the keys in the ignition or engine running (cooling down or heating up). Hell, if we have too much to dring, we always just sleep it off or just work.

I think it also matters if you are on public or private property. If you are parked in a mall parking lot, I don't think the cops can get you. If you are at a rest area or public street...

Sidi		2003-09-29 12:42:30 PM

The person hiding the watch might not be intending to commit a crime either...so I suppose it's a decent analogy for that. There's a reason they usually allow shoplifters to walk out of the store before they nab them, that way you don't have to prove that they didn't slip it into their pocket to free up a hand.

I think that, at the point where the engine is running and you're in the drivers seat, you should be considered in control of the vehicle. The radio works in the accessory position. It's not hard to keep an old blanket in your trunk.

Check Will Not Be Honored		2003-09-29 12:42:44 PM

thought crimes are not absurd, really. holding a gun to a cop entitles lethal force against you, even though you may or may not pull the trigger. if we don't call it DWI, we can call it something. "using a vehicle with impaired judgment and threatening citizens with vehicular homicide."

Jive_Turkey		2003-09-29 12:42:56 PM

'nuff said

karlmer		2003-09-29 12:43:45 PM

Has it occured to any of you geniuses that the reason it is illegal to drive drunk is on account of the fact that your freakin judgment is impaired? Can you follow that logical progression to the drunk sitting in the running car in the parking lot? We are to trust that he won't change his mind? Perhaps the proper response would have been to stake out his car?

Given a choice between him staying on the road, and pulling over, which would you prefer? Either way, he might change his mind, of course. The law is encouraging him to stay on the road.

makaha75		2003-09-29 12:43:49 PM

Why are you all assuming that this guy had WAY more than 4 beers and lied about it? Consider the opposite:
Assume he is a bit of a 'nerd' in the traditional sense - the article says he had 4 beers and left at 1 am. I am assuming the party started a lot earlier than that so lets say he got there at 9 pm, that gives him 1 beer per hour. Now say he is 140 lbs and doesn't drink that much. He leaves, starts driving, feels ill from 'overeating' (from the article) and pulls over. Consider the possability that he didn't know his blood alcohol level, didn't feel impaired but also didn't know what .08 feels like. Under those circumstances he did the right thing!
I would want to know what his BA was when they found him. I would like to know how I am supposed to know what .08 feels like.
If this is really an issue, we should all have to blow .00's to start ANY car - it's the only way to be safe...

01SSJay		2003-09-29 12:43:55 PM

Of course after I wash my car and im good and tanked, i do 60mph thru my apartment complex aiming for kids.

MarcWolfe		2003-09-29 12:43:59 PM

>TomblessEpitaph
>You know, articles like this make me wonder why someone ?>hasn't started "Drunk driving against mothers"

http://www.georgekranz.com/gk/damm.htm NECTSFW

YMMV

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 12:45:02 PM

2003-09-29 12:39:08 PM Robobagpiper

He says he had pulled over to sleep it off, but how do you know for sure?

So much for the presumption of innocence.

Frustrated that this is indeed the presumption in the courts, law-and-order thugs in our legislatures write presumption of guilt into the law, by any circuitous means they can.

presumption of innocence is a non-starter argument here. He committed a crime - he was in control of a vehicle while drunk. Whether he was sleeping it off is irrelevant.

MyrnaMinkoff -
if a driver goes to their car to sleep, use the phone, whatever, they're not even intending to commit a crime.

They are if they put the keys in the ignition.

should it be legal to buy an illegal gun, just because you haven't shot anyone yet?

no, they're seperate crimes. The law is broken when he is in control of the car, not when he decides to drive the car somewhere else.

sthayashi		2003-09-29 12:45:14 PM

DeanMoriarty, Cokemonkey, et al
I don't think you guys get it. If I KNOW I'm too drunk to drive, I can't just sleep it off in the car without getting a DUI? Even if I make this realization before I get to my car? People commenting here have described how people DIDN'T go anywhere, and STILL they got busted.

It's a case of Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. In a situation like that, I'll go for the Do. My bed is more comfortable than my car seat.

This guy was on the road for what? 20 minutes at most. You want to punish him for being on the road at all. I don't think he should be punished as harshly. Public Drunkeness? I could probably accept that, but not DUI.

vandamm78		2003-09-29 12:45:17 PM

Driving drunk is bad ... and getting caught is worse.

karlandtanya		2003-09-29 12:45:53 PM

...government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals.

That's pretty much the definition of "equal protection" under the law.

We all agree on what the test will be. It's called the "elements of the crime", and it's written into the law for all to see.

So, you cry "I don't agree; therefore I'm not bound". Fine, If you believe in your cause, act in civil disobedience of the law and become a test case?

Or quit complaining. Plenty of people have openly broken unjust laws to become test cases, then fought and won in court. The price is high, and victory is anything but guaranteed.

The price for the right to biatch is the duty to take action.

What alternative to a government administered test for guilt would you have? Lynch mobs? Personal conscience?

I'll bet when someone steals your CD collection, punches you in the mouth, and keys your car you'll go crying straight to the law, asking that they apply a "test" (this is called a trial) to determine if someone is a criminal.

Simply complaining that the law sucks is not enough. To gain any credibility at all, you need to propose an alternative Here are some examples of people who did not like the way things are run:

Simply complaining that the law sucks:
That Sucks--Beavis and Butthead

Proposing that a classist system of power is wrong, and that, instead, all should be treated equally:
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.--John Adams

vandamm78		2003-09-29 12:46:02 PM

This guy should have known to take the keys out of the ignition, this is common knowledge in NY/NJ.

pdoubleop		2003-09-29 12:46:35 PM

"Yes, officer. I am on my way to the bar. No, I haven't been drinking. What? You're giving me a ticket because you suspect I'll be drinking and driving later? You're giving my wife one too? How do you know she's going out with friends next week?"

DrBreRuthlessVillain		2003-09-29 12:46:48 PM

HappyDaddy: Can you follow that logical progression to the drunk sitting in the running car in the parking lot? We are to trust that he won't change his mind?

Yes, that's exactly what "we are to trust." Why? Because in this country people aren't supposed to get arrested for "maybe committing a crime at some point in the future." I have to make it clear, however, that in this particular case the guy admitted to driving drunk previously, so he did get what he deserved in a sense...But there is no justice in picking people up for trying to sleep one off in their cars without having moved the car at all.

Perhaps the proper response would have been to stake out his car?

I think that would have been a lot better than just arresting him and charging him with driving drunk even though he wasn't driving drunk.

MyrnaMinkoff		2003-09-29 12:46:55 PM

They are if they put the keys in the ignition.

Oh, so if a driver puts the keys in the ignition to start the radio or heater, they are intending to drive drunk?

You're an ass.

GW_Diesel		2003-09-29 12:47:35 PM

How about just quit drinking? Stay at home, spend time with your kids you damn drunks!

weemill		2003-09-29 12:47:48 PM

2003-09-29 12:37:32 PM DeanMoriarty

The point is, the presumption of guilt (not specific to this case, as the guy did commit a crime and admit to it) is not supposed to be built into our legal system. Driving, as defined by these laws, does just that. I don't know about you, but i keep my keys in my right front pocket, all the time-drunk or sober. The last thing i'd want is to be ticketed for DWI for sitting, outside my apartment, on my car, shooting the shiat with a buddy of mine.

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 12:47:50 PM

The law is encouraging him to stay on the road.

the law is encouraging him to not get in the car in the first place.

The law also allows him to turn the car off and get in the back if he wants to sleep.

the law has plenty of alternatives for idiots who can't make it home awake because they're too drunk.

gentlegiant621		2003-09-29 12:48:08 PM

MyrnaMinkoff:

"May feel it's okay" wasn't the basis for the law, but how the inebriated person might come to break the law. I wasn't saying that's why it is illegal.

Vociferocicuss		2003-09-29 12:48:15 PM

weemill

I always wondered about the drive thru daqs in New Orleans. I lived there until just a couple months ago and everyone told me the cops didn't consider your daiquiri to be an open container unless the straw was in it. Not that it really mattered much, I still drove around sippin' my 190 Octane, but do you know if that is really the law?

Rik01		2003-09-29 12:49:08 PM

I live in Florida and years ago, when I used to drink, got too drunk at a bar in the middle of a very cold winter one night. Knowing I was too drunk, I locked myself in and fell asleep to sober up. I had an open bottle of booze beside me on the seat, but did not drink from it -- this was before the open bottle laws. I awoke after the bar closed, freezing and turned on my car to get the heater going and dozed off again. Shortly after, the police arrived, aroused me and asked me what I was doing so I explained the situation to them.

Even though I admitted that I was too drunk to drive, they gave me a drunk test and hauled me in, booked me and drove me home with an order to appear at court! I had a clean record and this was before they started really cracking down on drunk drivers, being in the early 70s. The officer's partner, an older man, who drove me home was very apologetic, saying that in the 'old days' they would just have taken me home and not booked me.

I had to get a lawyer who went and persuaded the officer to drop the charges and there after, when I drank, I drove home instead of parking and sobering up or drove to an all night restaurant to drink coffee and straighten out. The cops said that because my car was running that I was drunk driving, even though I told them that it was running for heat because all I was wearing was a thin business suit and it was real cold outside. When asked what I should have done, the arresting officer said I should have locked the keys in the trunk!

At that time, the State government was broadcasting commercials on TV telling people that if they were too tired to drive at night to pull over and rest and I found out that, sober or not, if you did so, the cops could arrest you!!

It did not make any sense.

awkward saw		2003-09-29 12:49:51 PM

i've been pulled over twice because the fuzz thought i was drunk, but it turns out i'm just a bad driver.

MyrnaMinkoff		2003-09-29 12:49:54 PM

"May feel it's okay" wasn't the basis for the law, but how the inebriated person might come to break the law. I wasn't saying that's why it is illegal.

But it's asinine to arrest someone because they "might come to break the law."

That's my point.

The same logic that fuels gun control and the war on drugs.

"But a person might use those guns to shoot little babies!"

"But a person might abuse those drugs and then go crazy!"

Vociferocicuss		2003-09-29 12:51:01 PM

MyrnaMinkoff

I think the theory behind still being considered DUI while sitting parked with the keys in the ignition and the engine running would have to be that you could potentially knock your car in gear and cause an accident. Not that I agree.

my 2 cents

karlmer		2003-09-29 12:51:14 PM

the law is encouraging him to not get in the car in the first place.

Yeah, and that failed, so the law encourages him to continue driving drunk. You seem to be stuck on the first part. The second part is also relevant and important.

vandamm78		2003-09-29 12:52:04 PM

Break the law ... come on! Break It!!! BREAK IT BREAK IT BREAK IT!

HappyDaddy		2003-09-29 12:53:11 PM

myrna...

You are arguing that his conduct should not be illegal. That is very different from arguing that his conduct was not illegal. Assuming it is illegal to be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, he committed a crime. I am of the opinion that that it should be a crime. Why aren't you of the same opinion?

vandamm78		2003-09-29 12:53:40 PM

The keys in the ignition law is stupid, it should be vehicle in motion. Oh well, MAAD gets what MAAD wants ... and their mad ..

weemill		2003-09-29 12:55:27 PM

2003-09-29 12:48:15 PM Vociferocicuss

weemill

I always wondered about the drive thru daqs in New Orleans. I lived there until just a couple months ago and everyone told me the cops didn't consider your daiquiri to be an open container unless the straw was in it. Not that it really mattered much, I still drove around sippin' my 190 Octane, but do you know if that is really the law?

That's what I've always understood of it. If you've ever been in the Garden District, The daq shop on Carrollton and St. Charles is awesome. I had friends from Loyola always hook me up with extra shots of deisel in my 190's. Good times, good times.

MyrnaMinkoff		2003-09-29 12:55:42 PM

Why aren't you of the same opinion?
Because I don't like you.
Just kidding =).

I do not think that sitting in car in park with engine running = driving. Would it be illegal if the driver were sitting in the passenger seat?

vandamm78		2003-09-29 12:56:13 PM

HappyDaddy, he didn't get caught driving, if he got pulled over while he was driving then obviously he's guilty either way. Everyone breaks the law at one time or another, what matters is if and when you get caught.

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 12:56:39 PM

If I KNOW I'm too drunk to drive, I can't just sleep it off in the car without getting a DUI? Even if I make this realization before I get to my car? People commenting here have described how people DIDN'T go anywhere, and STILL they got busted.

get in the back. put the keys somewhere it's obvious you won't be driving this particular vehicle. problem solved.

MyrnaMinkoff , Weemill -

you guys don't seem to understand that driving, by law, doesn't mean the wheels are moving. There's no presumption of guilt here. Society has decided that DUI starts when you put the keys in, not when you get on the highway.

So yes, if you're drunk and you put the keys in to start the radio or turn on the heater, you are, in the eyes of everyone else, intending to drive drunk. If you have your wits about you enough to do all that without thinknig you can drive home, you probably have your wits about you enough to make it obvious that you don't intend to drive anywhere for a few hours.

Whhen I got busted, I got off because I'd already planned where I was going to sleep. The cop asked me how I was geting home, and I said "I'm not - I'm going to the office". He asked me the address, I told him, showed him a business card, and it all worked out fine.

And the 50 foot law exists so drunk drivers looking for excuses (seems like there are a lot of them here) can't just throw the keys out the window and say "You can't prove I was driving".

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 12:57:47 PM

Yeah, and that failed, so the law encourages him to continue driving drunk. You seem to be stuck on the first part. The second part is also relevant and important.

I'm sorry - we shouild build in an "out" for people who break the law then change their mind later?

there IS a recourse for the second part. Get in the back.

karlmer		2003-09-29 12:58:55 PM

You seem to be stuck on a technicality - the guy was not driving, despite your legal fiction.

IamsosmartSMRT		2003-09-29 12:59:58 PM

In Sweden the legal limit for drunk driving is 0.1... So you can have one beer, when you eat your steak or something like that... More than that, you leave your car at home... Then you dont have to guess, "hmmmm, am I too drunk to drive?"

awkward saw		2003-09-29 01:00:25 PM

just give the drunk guy a pilot's license

/problem solved

vegasj		2003-09-29 01:00:43 PM

it's part of the law-drunk while behind the wheel moving or not.

sleep it off but put the keys in the glove compartment, or hide them on top of a tire outside the car.

...and no, I didn't read all these posts.

sthayashi		2003-09-29 01:00:45 PM

DeanMoriarty
2003-09-29 12:47:50 PM DeanMoriarty
the law is encouraging him to not get in the car in the first place.
The law also allows him to turn the car off and get in the back if he wants to sleep.
the law has plenty of alternatives for idiots who can't make it home awake because they're too drunk.

I call BULLshiat. And I bring in two additional conditions. A) Cold-autumn/winter night and B) Flat out broke (or not enough cash for a cab ride).

What alternatives are there? You'd rather he freeze his ass off, then sleep in the warm comforts of his own car? All because he is too intoxicated to drive?

AcadianSidhe		2003-09-29 01:02:03 PM

What a shame. Granted, he was dumb enough to try to drive, but they should ahve been lenient on him for being responsible enough to realize it wasn't a great idea after all. It could have been worse if he'd tried to drive the whole way.

DeanMoriarty		2003-09-29 01:02:13 PM

the guy was not driving

Oh, so driving should only count if the car's moving?

Nivce crime prevention there.

maybe we should abolish DUI laws and jsut make it harsher if they hit someone, and let everyone take their chances.

it's not legal fiction. It's a reality. You're "driving" the second you put the key in.

Kuchi		2003-09-29 01:02:14 PM

"He drove along Interstate 495 until he felt nauseous from overeating and pulled into the mall parking lot, according to Kiss's account in the court records. He arrived a few minutes before the police officer noticed him in his car, head back and eyes closed, and gave him the sobriety test."

This guy wasn't pulling over because he wanted to 'sleep it off', he pulled over to puke and then would have gone right on driving home. guilty!

MyrnaMinkoff		2003-09-29 01:02:25 PM

So, can we all agree that if he had been sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running he'd have been okay?

I just think it's asinine to punish the guy for trying to A) get himself off the road and B) keep warm.

CB		2003-09-29 01:03:16 PM

Screw the pigs and screw MADD too. It used to be that common sense was used. If you were sitting in the bar lot an hour after the bar closed it was pretty farking obvious you didn't intend on driving till you sobered up. Now you get busted for it. And screw you folks who are sure to start in with shouldn't be drunk, keys here or there, etc. Today all the cops are into is busting everyone. "To protect and to serve", right self serving and protect thier own asses.

/rant rant rant

Displayed 50 of 613 comments