Skip to comments.Public Intoxication Ruling Could Dampen Party Plans (law allows intoxicated passengers to be cited)
Posted on 07/01/2011 8:06:34 PM PDT by DemforBush
INDIANAPOLIS -- An Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week is a timely, cautionary reminder for Hoosiers who plan to consume alcohol over the holiday weekend.
It is possible to be charged with public intoxication, even while in a vehicle with a designated driver.
Police had arrested an Indiana woman who was drunk in the passenger seat of a car. The Supreme Court ruled that a public intoxication charge can stand against people in a car on a public street...
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
That’s ridiculous. Public drunkeness should be reserved for nuisances, not responsible passengers minding their business.
If I’m passed out in the back seat, they can arrest me? Arrest me for sleeping?
What the hell is up with Indiana?
I wouldn’t doubt it. I know a guy who has a DUI conviction because he was showing somebody his car stereo at a party at his house. The car was in the driveway with another car parked behind him because he wasn’t planning on leaving the party, it was his house! The key was in the ignition and turned on, even though the car wasn’t running, so that was enough. Ironically, no neighbors had complained, the cop was just passing by and saw a bunch of people drinking from red plastic cups in the front yard. What a bunch of crap that was.
This happened in California in the mid 1990s while he was active military.
“I don’t want to be drunk in Pu-blick. I want to be drunk in a bar”...Ron White
That sums it up for me.
An Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week is a timely, cautionary reminder for Hoosiers who plan to consume alcohol over the holiday weekend. It is possible to be charged with public intoxication, even while in a vehicle with a designated driver.
The judicial branches in our country are quickly eroding our liberties, legislating from the bench in this manner.
We are dealing with oligarchic renegades at this time.
All righty then. Good thing I don’t live in Indiana. Be some judgie wudgies looking for a place to F@@@ING hide.
It pisses the hell out of me how riff-raff get a pass but decent people get nailed on piddly stuff. The dregs that are constantly in and out of court know the laws and court procedures really well, so the cops and judges have to really play it straight in court. The average joe doesn’t know most of his rights, and the cops and judge sure as hell aren’t going to tell him, so the good people go into court and get totally railroaded.
A guy isn’t going to spend several grand on a lawyer on a $300 misdemeanor, and the people running the system know that. They go into the den of sharks with no idea what’s up and just get eaten up. Welcome to the New America, all right, where the criminals are untouchable and the good people get manufactured into criminals.
Perhaps now that the Indiana Supremes have themselves opined, in the same decision, that the legislature ought to clarify its intent in its ban on public drunkenness, the effort to get that law narrowed will succeed. The legislature can’t pass the buck now. It’s insane not to permit people who became intoxicated away from home in a private place to be given a ride back home or some other private place.
Get to know an attorney. It helps on the small crap. Most courts will drop everything on simple misdemeanors when they get hit with motion after motion.
Well, this is a case where all the technical i’s and t’s were dotted and crossed and the money was spent to push it up to the state’s supreme court. Indiana needs to either fix this or bear the shame for being assholes.
It is the unstated goal of the Marxist/Super Stateists to make so many laws that everyone is a criminal. Then their TOTAL power over the people will be achieved.
then why bother having a designated driver. Going after bar and restaurant business now? You can’t drink and drive. So, now you can’t drive and not drink or just not drink and not drive. or just not drink period. Must be a dem law its the only way it makes sense...even then NOT
Kind of defeating purpose isn’t it?
If everybody followed every law in effect, it would be necessary to manufacture a crime so that government would still hold sway over the populace.
I think the blame here is more to statists than to teetotal wowsers who want to see bars themselves erased from existence. That’s why they wrote the law widely and the technically correct court goes like, duh, we can’t put any common sense in here if the legislature didn’t.
Now that Indiana passed the law requiring no search warrant to enter homes, prolly best not to any drinking there either...
There is more to this story.
There’s no ban on home drinking yet, but statists are loathe to back down. Why a place like Indiana, where they are cool with all manner of “risky” fireworks being sold to any comer (even from out of state), whereas neighboring Illinois which can’t countenance anything showier than a sparkler without an exhibitor’s license never arrests drunken passengers for being drunken? It’s the United States of Nonsense.
And the more is that the legislature took a statist attitude and drafted a broad law.
Chicago would like to invite all Indianans who like bars to visit with their designated driver. See, Illinois is good for something.
Sorry, now I get it, bars will have to make room for drunk cots for anyone over the limit..ride or not. smh...or only serve soda that way they’re completely off the hook (and out of business)
This is just another example of the traditional, nuclear family disappearing from America. People just don’t stay home and get drunk anymore.
post 26 was meant for you..
Well, IMO, we shoulda been minding the store and not letting the truly stupid people have the run of the place while we were out having fun.
People who are attempting to avoid committing a crime (or worse) are still a target, specifically because they are putting into effect a practice that law enforcement recommends. I’m getting a headache. Don’t these people have anything better better to do?
The court has a case in mind for this. I’m thinking cab drivers.
It’s also a RINO problem. The 2010 influx of Republicans into state legislatures in revolt against the wild socialism of Obama was certainly no panacea for establishing common sense. The GOP still needs its feet to be put to the fire.
You believe they will suddenly come forward and say, without any more editing to the law, it’s OK for a drunken person to go home over public roads if it’s via cab? Because cabs pay all these taxes? Crony capitalism isn’t any better than statism.
I don’t understand it.
It would be more logical for cab companies to put heat on the legislature.
Actually what I meant was, they want public intox charges to be applied if a cabbie calls a cop on an unruly passenger. Even if a contract has been made.
As it is, the cabbie has all the blackmail rights over the tipsy passenger now under this decision. If you don’t tip me real good I’ll call a cop. Why would he want it narrowed?
I’d be real curious what MADD has to say about this law....to spend countless years and money to convince society that a designated driver is all you need...and then this?
Would hate to be a bar or restaurant owner in Indiana - no one will get home unfined.....Might as well order Pizza-delivered.
Which would be the opposite of what I envisioned, except that a cop could swoop down on a cab with a tipsy passenger any time and take the passenger away — then the cabbie has to sue to get paid. Even in small claims court that will eat up more money in the cabbie’s time than it’s worth.
But they don’t care. The R’s, The D’s. We don’t count. ALL of them are in it for themselves. You had it right with the United States of Nonsense. My own Repub Governor has lost his freeking mind.
Is there any great public outcry for measures this draconian? It’s not for the sake of safe streets. MAAD (Mothers Against Any Drinking)
Ah, the Idahoan version of Chinatown. Do they want tourism?
Under this law you would be subject to arrest because you avoided driving your vehicle while intoxicated (DWI). Instead you'll now be cited for "Riding while intoxicated" (RWI)
I think we need to ban alcohol, its clearly nothing but evil... oh, wait!
To be honest, I don’t know what the ruling is based on. Is a cabbie any different than a party boat operator.......
Indiana was usually a reliably sensible state. What happened??
Not if the cabbie invites you to BYOB
What if the partyboat operator has the same rule, but a live band is playing and there is a 25 dollar cover............
If I want cheap Chinese shit I'll just go to Walmart. No point in crawling through all that razor wire.
HA! By Jove - you've got it!
The drunk drivers apparently have subsided -along with the arrests of said-drunk drivers and application of fees anf fines of said runk drivers
Therefore government entities must go the extra steps to secure their rightful ordained revenue.
Deviously Perfect Law - got you coming and going - whether you drove yourself there or not.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.