Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 03/27/2009 6:42:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper
That Daryl Fleck , 55, may not have intended to drive when he was found sleeping drunk in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, parked in his home lot at 11:30 p.m. “is immaterial,” Judge Terri Stoneburner argued in a Minnesota Appeals Court decision that upheld Fleck’s drunk driving conviction. Under Minnesota’s Driving While Impaired statute, 169A.20, it is illegal for any person with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of .08 to “drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle.”
Stoneburner argues in accordance with State v. Starfield : “Physical control is meant to cover situations where an inebriated person is found in a parked vehicle that, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger.” But “mere presence in or about the vehicle is not enough for physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative.” Unfortunately for Fleck, the court found the keys situation determinative, but the slumber situation irrelevant. Stoneburner actually ruled a passed-out Fleck capable of starting a car “without too much difficulty.”
A sleeping drunk with no intent to drive or motion to constitute driving can now be charged under Minnesota’s Driving While Impaired statute. Make no mistake: This ruling holds that the potential to commit crime constitutes actual crime, and one is guilty until proven innocent. “There is no evidence his purpose for being in the vehicle was inconsistent with driving,” the opinion stated.
The Fleck case, like Starfield before it, is downright tyrannical law. Minnesota should increase DWI penalties before stretching enforceability beyond the reasonable meaning of language. Whether the keys are near them or not, a snoring drunk has no more control of a vehicle than he does with his dreams. Daryl Fleck now faces four years in prison for never actually posing a danger to his self or others.
Now you can be arrested and convicted, after appeal, for something that you MIGHT do.
Fabulous.
This would be a DWI in Maryland also.
Lets not let established FACTS get in the way of the judicial system, okay?
I’m not eager to be driving alongside a bunch of drunks careening around, either. But, this man did not do what he’s been convicted of doing.
The road to Hell, and all that.
By this logic they might as well arrest Bill Clinton any time he gets near an intern. Sheesh.
Ping.
What if you went to sleep in the back seat? Would that be a DUI/DWI as well? What if you passed out in your bed in a motor home?
Not allowed to sleep it off in PA either.
Around here, if you have the keys on your person, you’re busted.
what if you give your keys to someone else to hold ‘till ya slept it off?
I guess if you throw your keys into the bushes, you are safe (although I wouldn't count on that).
We have prohibition in this country, most people just don't realize it yet.
They're being acquainted with that one at a time - for revenue.
For all that judge knew, the guy could've had a nasty row with the wife, got tanked to drown his sorrows, and chose to sleep outside of the house just to get away from the infernal harangue.
This actually happened to my brother in Indiana. Arrested in his driveway, sitting drunk in his car.
His evil black widow (now ex-)wife had called the police on him.
Thankfully, he is now 5+ years sober. I think his (ex) wife drove him to drink! :)
Something is missing.
A minor, too young for a drivers license, can drive a car or truck on private property with no risk of being arrested.
Yet this guy is arrested while on PRIVATE property, and it sticks?
Excerpts - The keys were in the center console; the vehicle was in working order and parked in his assigned space in the apartment lot. He was alone.
Three open beer cans were under a blanket on the passenger seat. Fleck's alcohol level was 0.18.
and more..
In State, City of Falcon Heights v. Pazderski, the defendant also was found in a drunken slumber in his car near his residence. But the man won his appeal.
Why? Because the record showed he had gone out to sleep in his car after a fight with his girlfriend, the court wrote. The keys were not in the ignition, nor was there evidence they were in the car or in the defendant's possession. It was clear the man had no intention of driving, the previous court said.
I believe it’s the same in PA. Climbing in the backseat would not save you if you have the keys on your person or in the ignition. Never made any sense to me as everyone, including the drunk, is better off if he pulls over instead of continuing to drive.
You gotta have a fence and a gate or it’s not “private” property.
You can drink liquor in a motor home so it would be ok to pass out in one.
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.