Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Connecticut's Highest Court Invents a New Offense
It's called, "Sitting in an idling, parked car while intoxicated."
Unfortunately, it carries the same penalties as actually driving a car while intoxicated.
The guy in this case had prior DUI convictions, so perhaps he's not all that sympathetic. But there are certainly innocuous reasons why after the bars close in Connecticut in February, an intoxicated person might want to wait for a taxi or sober ride in a warm, idling car.
kinnath|3.25.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Without reading the arcticle . .
Here in the great plains, a chump got drunk and decided not to
drive home. But it was cold, so he started the car then climbed
into the back seat to sleep it off. Some time later, the police
arrested him for OUI. It was upheld in court, because the keys were
in the ignition so he was "operating" the vehicle.
|3.25.09 @ 2:22PM|#
It has been illegal since at least the mid-80s in both Kentucky and Indiana to sit in a parked and running car while intoxicated. I even know one guy popped for a DUI because he was drunk and rummaging on the floorboard for a cassette tape and the key was in the ignition so the radio would come on. He fought it like cats and dogs, but it stuck.
|3.25.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Umm, no comment as to the rightness or wrongness of it but in Florida the car does not even have to be idling. Being alone in a car, in possession of the keys is enough.
|3.25.09 @ 2:25PM|#
In Kentucky, people have had DUI convictions for riding lawnmowers, bicycles, and riding a horse on their own property. My question is... how can someone in a wheelchair ever get legally drunk? I asked my traffic school instructor (I got popped for going the wrong way on a deserted one-way street) and he just shot me a pissy look.
|3.25.09 @ 2:27PM|#
It's called, "Sitting in an idling, parked car while
intoxicated."
This isn't new.
When I was young pup in school going through Driver's Ed. we were
taught that you can get hit with a DUI if you are drunk in a parked
car with the key in the ignition.
|3.25.09 @ 2:29PM|#
It should at least be a lesser offense, like attempted drunk driving or something. Otherwise, why not go for the home run if you've been drinking? Moral issues aside, of course.
JB|3.25.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Drunk driving is a victimless crime.
It shouldn't be a crime until you commit an action which is a
danger to others.
I don't drink and drive, but I'm sure I am better driver at .10
than this dumb broad sober:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uLECuGK07U&feature=channel_page
|3.25.09 @ 2:30PM|#
In Kentucky, people have had DUI convictions for riding
lawnmowers, bicycles, and riding a horse on their own
property.
That's pretty fucked up.
Again back in Driver's Ed. we were told that on private property we
don't even need a license to drive. A 10 year old could go up and
down their driveway if they wanted to as long as they didn't make
it to the street.
MNG|3.25.09 @ 2:31PM|#
How about leaning on a idled car while intoxicated?
Looking at an idled car while intoxicated?
Jangling your keys while intoxicated in front of an idled car?
MNG|3.25.09 @ 2:32PM|#
"TofuSushi | March 25, 2009, 2:26pm | #
I would rather live in Gaza than Kentucky,"
Daytime drinking again SIV? I thought your employer frowned on
that, even if she is your mother...
TofuSushi|3.25.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I am not and never have been SIV, I am TofuSushi.
Additionally, I am losing my admiration for you.
TofuSushi|3.25.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Indiana hasn't fired rockets at us in years.
What about Jews nearby in general?
MNG|3.25.09 @ 2:38PM|#
"Additionally, I am losing my admiration for you."
Alas, I cry "noone you know."
The Ocean Doesn\'t Want Me|3.25.09 @ 2:41PM|#
Same kinda scene recently played out here in Minnesota. There's a gulf of difference between "the law" and "justice" these days. And it is getting worse.
TofuSushi|3.25.09 @ 2:42PM|#
SugarFree,
Never mind. I looked it up. I am taking MNG's advice and changing
my vote to Kentucky.
|3.25.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Otherwise, why not go for the home run if you've been
drinking?
This is the truly baffling thing about this sort of nonsense. If we
are truly interested in reducing the danger inherent in drinking,
why wouldn't we do everything to encourage people to not
actually drive?
If somebody wants to ride his bicycle (or his horse) home drunk, we
should encourage that.
|3.25.09 @ 2:44PM|#
How can anyone justify charging someone with a DUI when they are not even in the driver's seat? Even if in the driver seat, they still have yet to commit a crime if the car is not in gear. But in the passenger seat or the back seat? Even without the keys in the ignition? What if I'm drunk and my sober driver runs into the store while leaving the car running to keep warm. Am I a drunk driver?
Camper John|3.25.09 @ 2:46PM|#
In Minnesota, the car doesn't even have to be running. All that's required is that the key be in the ignition.
Cold Sore|3.25.09 @ 2:48PM|#
"I would rather live in Gaza than Kentucky"
We too, would rather you live in Gaza.
Zeb|3.25.09 @ 2:51PM|#
This is terrible. Presumably the parking lot is private property. If I want to do drunken donuts on private property (and I have permission from the owner) how the fuck is that anyone's business. And this guy wasn't even driving. What next, are they going to start pulling people on racetracks over for speeding?
|3.25.09 @ 2:51PM|#
When I lived in England, you could be charged with a DUI on the police officer's suspicion that you planned to drive a car and had a BA content above the legal limit. Even if you were simply opening the passenger-side door to retrieve something from your car, while it was parked in front of your house at night with the engine off and you had no actual intention of driving anywhere.
Franklin Harris|3.25.09 @ 2:52PM|#
In Minnesota, the car doesn't even have to be running. All that's required is that the key be in the ignition.
That's also the law here in Alabama.
Clearly, these states would rather people freeze to death in winter
than at least be allowed to crank their cars and turn on the
heat.
Zeb|3.25.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"If we are truly interested in reducing the danger inherent in
drinking, why wouldn't we do everything to encourage people to not
actually drive?"
That would make sense, wouldn't it. People even get hassled
walking home from the bar sometimes. Shouldn't the police
be fucking ecstatic to see a drunk who is responsible enough to
walk home?
So, one can only conclude that the people responsible for these
laws are just mean and vindictive and think drinkers are nasty
people and if they want to drink they can stay at home with all the
doors locked and blinds drawn so no children can see their nasty
vicious behavior.
|3.25.09 @ 2:57PM|#
Drunk driving is a victimless crime.
It shouldn't be a crime until you commit an action which is a
danger to others.
Driving drunk is reckless endangerment and rightly a
crime. Like all things, the government will often go overboard.
It's closing time, you're too drunk to drive and it's cold. You
starting the car for heat and sleeping it off in the parking lot
endangers nobody.
|3.25.09 @ 2:58PM|#
P Brooks,
If we are truly interested in reducing the danger inherent in
drinking, why wouldn't we do everything to encourage people to not
actually drive?
When I was in college the incentives to drive drunk were incredibly
perverse. The downtown drinking district is about 1-2 miles from
where most students live. The cops handed out dozens of Public
Intoxication tickets for those trying to walk home. The public
buses wouldn't let you on if you smelled of booze (unless you're a
gibbering homeless person, of course.) There was a cab company
monopoly supported by the city, and cabs were not only
super-expensive, but had few controls on pricing the ride at
whatever the hell they felt like. So, you can't drive, walk, take
the bus, or not get ripped off by a cab.
And Lexington can't understand why downtown is a scene from The
Omega Man. Dumbasses.
Neil Diamond or Deep Purple|3.25.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Kentucky woman.
If she get to know you,
She goin' to own you.
Kentucky woman.
Diver Phil|3.25.09 @ 3:06PM|#
My aunt was a juror in California on a case like this. The guy
was drunk with the keys in the ignition. The car was on and he was
to drunk to drive.
He had two previous hung juries and since my aunt was on the case
there was a third.
phalkor|3.25.09 @ 3:14PM|#
I have the best example of how awesome laws like this are.
At a house party, the summer after senior year of high school, my
buddy gets a call from a particularly trashy girl that he was quite
fond of. He wanted to go pick her up, but I was having a good time
and didn't want to leave. He was determined to meet his booty call
so off he goes. I remember saying something like "don't get
fucked".
Apparently he picks the chick up and goes to a former cornfield now
suburban development and parks the car. As he is enjoying the high
school ritual of getting laid in the back seat of his car he hears
a rap on the glass and looks up right into a flashlight. DUI, no
pants, awesome.
Apparently some burbia-dweller called about a "suspicious vehicle"
suspecting that it was a drug dealer. The police report was saved
for posteriety. My buddy was damn lucky he wasn't 18 yet, or that
report would follow him around for quite some time. Well, for
better of for worse.
Federal Dog|3.25.09 @ 3:17PM|#
This has been the law in Massachusetts since 1928 (Commonwealth v. Uski).
Reinmoose|3.25.09 @ 3:22PM|#
I knew a guy that this happened to and the crazy-ass prosecutor (I don't know what you call them in these cases, i'm not a lawyer) pushed for the MAXIMUM sentence. She said it was necessary to discourage this kind of reckless behavior and send the right message. His pleas of "but I didn't even DO anything!" were never heard.
JB|3.25.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Driving drunk is reckless endangerment and rightly a
crime.
No, it isn't. If you are obeying the laws of the road and can
execute and perform the necessary functions of driving, it
shouldn't matter what your BAC is. If you swerve into oncoming
traffic, hit somebody, or otherwise violate a law, you should be
fined or prosecuted for violating that law. I don't care if the
person is high, drunk, retarded, stupid, old, handicapped, or
Obama.
Some people drive better at .10 BAC than other people do sober. I'm
even willing to bet that I drive better at .10 BAC than 90% of 80
year olds do sober.
|3.25.09 @ 3:42PM|#
So let's talk new law.
Only allow arrest for DUI of a vehicle that is parked if:
-The person is in the driver's seat
-Keys are in the ignition
-Vehicle is started
-Driver has neither of his feet on the pavement (stops them from
arresting someone for sitting sideways in the driver's seat
Add additional clause that allows arrest of
-A person seated in any position that manipulates the gear shift,
parking brake, brake pedal, accelerator, or other control(s) in a
way that causes the vehicle to move.
Perhaps exempt only vehicles be parked on private property with no
witnesses that claim the driver drove the vehicle while intoxicated
to the position it's currently parked in.
May have to create a presumption that a person in a vehicle that is
stopped on a public road or public area not designated as a parking
space immediately adjacent to a public road (shoulder, etc) and is
the only person in or around the vehicle is the actual driver of
the vehicle and can be cited for DUI.
Thoughts, comments?
Flex Nasty B.I.G.|3.25.09 @ 3:43PM|#
If you find yourself in the situation of needing to sit in an idling car while intoxicated, you're probably better off sitting in the passenger seat. You will probably have a slighly better chance of convincing a cop and/or judge that you had no intention of driving.
Paul|3.25.09 @ 3:46PM|#
innocuous reasons why after the bars close in Connecticut in February, an intoxicated person might want to wait for a taxi or sober ride in a warm, idling car.
I've done it.
Reinmoose|3.25.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Brendan Perez -
I would agree with that only if you also think that we should
arrest people who have a gun with murder, and a person with a hard
on in a public setting for rape.
Abdul|3.25.09 @ 3:49PM|#
The title of the relevant law, CGS §§ 14-227a, is "Operation
while under the influence of liquor or drug or while having an
elevated blood alcohol content."
I think most people would find that the term "operation" of a motor
vehicle would include being in the driver's seat with the car
running.
I mean, if you caught stranger sitting in your car with the engine
idling, and the police refused to do anything about it because it's
not grand theft auto until he starts driving, you'd be pissed,
right?
Reinmoose|3.25.09 @ 4:00PM|#
I thought we had some pretty clear lines in this country between the concepts of thinking about doing something illegal, attempting to do something illegal, and doing something illegal.
Reinmoose|3.25.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I mean why not just, as a police officer, stay put until the guy puts the car in gear and starts to move, and then move in?
|3.25.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Brendan, if the car ain't moving, you ain't driving it, and
can't be "driving under the influence."
Its called a "moving violation" for a reason.
ev|3.25.09 @ 4:08PM|#
SugerFree:
What the fuck do you mean you don't understand how a person in a
wheelchair can get legally drunk? I'd imagine they'd like to get
drunk more often than normal.
Were you talking about like a drunk rolling violation? That would
be brutally funny.
On a personal note: I am the best drunk driver in the history of
man. Not piss-blind impaired because I almost never go down that
path. Driving stoned and well above .08 has taught me how to drive.
Hell, I learned to smoke weed while driving (it was a bong, making
it even funnier/stupider). I now am the most patient driver
ever---the threat of getting DUI'd or having a bowl stolen is a
huge incentive to respect the road.
|3.25.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Why not take it one step further and just arrest anybody in a
bar who has car keys on them? Even if their car was left at home,
maybe they will drive somewhere after getting a ride there. If you
weren't planning on driving, why didn't you leave the car keys at
home?
I really don't this logic any worse than some of the examples cited
above.
|3.25.09 @ 4:11PM|#
I meant:
I really don't think this logic is any worse than some of the
examples cited above.
Reinmoose|3.25.09 @ 4:12PM|#
I really don't this logic any worse than some of the
examples cited above.
OOh OOh! What if we just arrest anyone who gets out of a car and
goes into an establishment that serves alcohol. You're 100% of the
time going into these establishments to drink, after all, and then
we can assume that you're going to drive home.
|3.25.09 @ 4:15PM|#
"""Driving drunk is reckless endangerment and rightly a
crime."""
Assuming they are actually drunk, and actually driving. Drunk
driving charges these days have less to do with endangerment. It's
becoming an anti-drinking tool meant to harrass drunks regardless
of the ability to endanger others.
|3.25.09 @ 4:25PM|#
It's becoming an anti-drinking a revenue enhancement tool
meant to harrass drunks regardless of the ability to endanger
others.
And all that revenue is just a serendipitous coincidence.
|3.25.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Drat! I forgot to edit my edit of the original quoted comment.
Should have been:
It's becoming an anti-drinking tool meant to harrass drunks
regardless of the ability to endanger others.
And all that revenue is just a serendipitous coincidence.
|3.25.09 @ 4:33PM|#
I'd argue that in the state of Washington, public "servants" and supreme court justices should be considered guilty of DUI the instant they get in their vehicle, until proven otherwise.
|3.25.09 @ 4:43PM|#
ev,
Were you talking about like a drunk rolling violation? That
would be brutally funny.
This. If a bicycle, a lawnmower, and horse are considered vehicles
for the purposes of DUI, how can a wheelchair not be? If so, then
how can a person in a wheelchair get drunk without being guilty of
DUI?
|3.25.09 @ 5:12PM|#
"""I thought we had some pretty clear lines in this country
between the concepts of thinking about doing something illegal,
attempting to do something illegal, and doing something
illegal."""
We did away with the philosophy years ago. Get with the new America
already! If you can't prosecute people for thinking about illegal
activities you won't win against the terrorist.
Kidding aside. Those lines are being played with. Intelligence
about what people are thinking about doing, and preventing those
actions is all the rage in post 9/11 America. Law enforcement likes
the idea of preventing crimes via data mining.
|3.25.09 @ 5:20PM|#
How many Nobody or Trinity movies need one watch to know a horse is a drunk man's best mode of transportation.
D.A. Ridgely|3.25.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Far be it from me to agree with the law on this point, but
sitting behind the wheel while intoxicated in an idling motor
vehicle even on private property has probably been sufficient
grounds to support at least a charge and possibly a conviction of a
DWI in most states for decades. The Virginia Code, for example,
begins "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any
motor vehicle..." No mention of being on a public road. No mention
of the car moving. If you're drunk behind the wheel of a car with
the engine running or maybe even with the motor off and the engine
still hot, you're at risk of being cited.
Should that be the law? Not in my opinion. But it's nothing new,
either.
|3.25.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Brendan, if the car ain't moving, you ain't driving it, and
can't be "driving under the influence."
Its called a "moving violation" for a reason.
Did the assault weapon ban have anything to do with assault
weapons? This is government. No logic or understanding of language
is necessary. They can arbitrarily redefine words to make any
action legal or illegal on the well established "it's good to be
the king" legal principle.
Hugh|3.25.09 @ 6:06PM|#
Is it reasonable to expect those who imbibe a substance that
impairs decision-making faculties to then make the right decision
and not drive, particularly those who may black out, despite their
best efforts?
Would it not make more sense to exploit technologies that eliminate
the possibility of turning on the ignition with products such as a
breathalyser or steering wheel sensors capable of detecting
blood-alcohol level?
Legislating morality on drinkers makes as much sense as keeping
drugs illegal. Imagine all of the current problems that would
simply vanish if the government kept it's big nose out of our
personal lives?
Trust me when I say, the people who want to use drugs are already
using them. There won't be some tidal flood of junkies, much to the
chagrin of nay-sayers.
|3.25.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Mine was an attempt at compromise-heavily weighted towards
innocent people trying to sleep it off.
Chances are they would say that a person in the driver seat of a
running car, door closed, feet inside and drunk was basically in
control of the vehicle and that driving and in full control are
analogous to a person waving a gun around. He's not shooting
anyone, but is a significant threat nonetheless.
We could do away with DUI by simply punishing the actual illegal
driving-weaving, failing to stop/obey traffic control, etc. But
that has even less chance of flying then my idea does.
|3.25.09 @ 6:46PM|#
Count me in with those who are amazed this was posted as if it
were news. I've known people who got DUIs for sitting drunk in a
car in six different states going back 30 years. Didn't matter if
the car was even running -- all that mattered was the person was
drunk, in the car, and in possession of the keys.
Only ever saw one person escape the DUI charge. A couple of years
ago we found one of our troops passed out in his locked vehicle in
the dorm parking lot. He was breathing but unresponsive so we
called Security and when they responded they busted out a window to
gain access. He turned out to be nearly comatose-drunk and spent
the day in the ER. Because the keys were in the truck the
authorities wanted to charge him with DUI. Jurisdiction varies on
military installations but in this case the state deferred to the
military. It turns out the guy had a history of calling his
girfriend in Hawaii late at night and didn't want to wake his
roommate so he went to his truck where he could have some privacy
and turn on the heat. Only difference was this night someone gave
him lots of alcohol & gatorade (yuk) beforehand and because he
had never drank before, he overconsumed and passed out. My CO wrote
a letter to the magistrate explaining that we had full confidence
that he had not driven nor had any intent to drive and they
dismissed everything. We handled the underage drinking violation
separately.
Dumb, dumb law and it only exists because of the pro-prohibition
zealots who took over MADD. Even Candy Lightner has distanced
herself from them.
Michael Ejercito|3.25.09 @ 8:11PM|#
If somebody wants to ride his bicycle (or his horse) home drunk, we should encourage that.
Those actions are also unreasonably dangerous and negligent.
Michael Ejercito|3.25.09 @ 8:26PM|#
Even Candy Lightner has distanced herself from them.
Any cite for this? (I know whom Candy Lightner is.)
|3.25.09 @ 10:07PM|#
I didn't know this was news. In Texas, that's been the law for years, I believe. The point being, I suppose(and I can't believe I'm going to defend a law), that the person might be about to begin driving when caught be law enforcement. The only way to be sure is to have the engine off and the keys out of the ignition. I've been a bartender for about a decade, and many many times I've told drunks to turn off the engine, pocket the keys, and get into the passenger seat, in case the police happen to cruise through the parking lot.
Michael Ejercito|3.25.09 @ 10:29PM|#
The point being, I suppose(and I can't believe I'm going to defend a law), that the person might be about to begin driving when caught be law enforcement.
There are these things called reverse lights that light up when the
car is put into reverse.
If the car is put into reverse, that is evidence of driving and
thus is the person behind the wheel is drunk...
Fluffy|3.25.09 @ 10:58PM|#
I think most people would find that the term "operation" of
a motor vehicle would include being in the driver's seat with the
car running.
As far as I am concerned, until the car is on the public way,
NOTHING is "operating", up to and including doing donuts or
swinging the fucking car from a crane.
The government has the authority to regulate the use of motor
vehicles on the public way and nowhere else. Period. Any state that
has taken upon itself the right to regulate any aspect of motor
vehicle operation off the public way has stepped beyond its
bounds.
That simple - very simple - rule of thumb would basically
immediately eliminate from consideration people in wheelchairs at
home, people mowing their lawn, riding a horse, etc. As well as the
guy sleeping it off in the parking lot of the bar.
¢|3.25.09 @ 11:49PM|#
In Minnesota, the car doesn't even have to be running. All
that's required is that the key be in the ignition.
A guy I know there went down for sleeping one off with the ignition
key in the trunk. He put it there thinking what you said.
Not so. Not for someone relying on a public defender, at
least.
If you're too drunk to drive, drive fast.
Michael Ejercito|3.26.09 @ 12:23AM|#
A guy I know there went down for sleeping one off with the ignition key in the trunk.
What was his name?
|3.26.09 @ 5:26AM|#
Nothing new -- in Iowa sitting drunk in an idling car has been deemed "drunk driving" by the courts. In fact, even having the keys in the ignition, but the car engine off, while drunk gets you a drunk driving charge here.
|3.26.09 @ 9:45AM|#
re: Michael Ejercito @ March 25, 8:26pm
In an undated article on-line, the author writes: "Ms. Lightner
left MADD and is concerned that the organization that she herself
created is changing its focus. "It has become far more
neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I
didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with
the issue of drunk driving."
It's referenced but I didn't check that out.
Here's the link:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1119636699.html
Michael Ejercito|3.26.09 @ 1:03PM|#
In fact, even having the keys in the ignition, but the car engine off, while drunk gets you a drunk driving charge here.
Because people sitting in their cars while drunk poses a menace to
society.
Benjamin Wolf|4.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
That last comment got left to early.
What I was going to say was that I wrote about this issue and what
the rule would be in a similar situation under New York State law
here:
http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/driving-while-intoxicated-dwi-when-youre-not-actually-driving/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245