Posted on 09/02/2007 3:22:06 AM PDT by Daffynition
New Jersey appellate court decision upholds a DUI for a man sleeping in a parked truck under the influence.
New Jersey Superior Court logoA New Jersey appellate court yesterday upheld the principle that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can be imposed on individuals who were not driving. David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him. The officer had opened the door of Montalvo's truck to rouse the man and insist that he take a breathalyzer test. Montalvo refused.
He was arrested and forced to make a conditional guilty plea to the charge of DUI, intending to challenge the police officer's actions as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Montalvo's attorney argued that the patrolman could have no reasonable grounds to suspect that a sleeping man was involved in criminal activity. Montalvo's truck was running, in park, because according to weather records it was about 25 degrees Fahrenheit that Saturday morning.
"From the perspective of the officer on the scene, I don't find at all that what he was doing was unreasonable," Superior Court Judge Thomas Critchley Jr. said in his rejection of Montalvo's argument. "In fact, I find it would have been unreasonable to have stopped his inquiries at any point short of what he did."
The appellate court agreed that the officer was acting reasonably to render assistance to someone who may have been in distress.
"The officer wanted to make sure the driver was 'okay,' nothing was wrong with the businesses and that the truck was operating properly," the appellate decision concluded. "We are convinced that under the facts as observed by Officer Aaronson defendant was lawfully subject to limited inquiry based upon an objectively reasonable exercise of the officer's community caretaking function."
The appellate division affirmed Montalvo's DUI conviction, meaning the sleeping motorist faces a civil remedial fee or "driver responsibility" tax of $3000 in addition to various other fines and fees of at least $1000, plus his legal bills.
[The full text of the unpublished court ruling is available in a 49k PDF file at the source link.]
I feel so much safer.
The state has made its position clear: Drive home drunk, or risk getting busted for DUI in a non-moving car.
He had to have driven the car to that location, uh....DRUNK.
Our judicial system is slowly morphing into a system of lawless oppression. By lawless, I mean that the laws don't mean what they mean, they mean what some judge says they mean which is entirely different from what they actually do mean. And all of it is designed to give greater power to the government to throw your *** in jail or seize your property if you don't do exactly as they say.
And where's your proof of that?
He could have easily walked there. He could have sat in the vehicle and consumed alcohol (different offense no doubt, but not DUI). He could have gone to a party and a friend dropped him at his vehicle.
If it can be proven that he drove there drunk, then I change my stance. But I see no proof.
But nobody saw him do it.
I note that in this case the government has forcibly seized at least $4,000 from this man, not including his legal fees which will probably amount to at least another $1,000 or more. And for what? He might have been charged with public intoxication, but he certainly wasn’t “driving under the influence.”
Since when the hell does “driving” mean lying on a truck vehicle sleeping?
Plus, when interviewed, he obviously didn't opt for any of the possible explanations you cited.
He probably admitted driving there and realized he needed to sleep it off a bit.
See #10.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS follow the money.
But... the guy made the big mistake of having the vehicle running.
===================================
Because he is in control of the vehicle. Even if it wasn't running and he only had the keys in his pocket but is still in the vehicle he is in control of it, according to the law.
Been that way for decades around here anyways
I don't agree with it, I'm just saying how it is.
And I didn't see anything in the ruling to suggest he admitted driving there. On the contrary, he refused a breath test, so it doesn't look like he was in an "admitting" mood.
I’m no fan of drunks but it seems the cop could have just called the guy a cab. In the old days in small town, small government America that’s probably what would have happened.
Then once again we're back to laws not meaning what they mean.
You left out the possibility that aliens had abducted him, conducted medical experiments involving alcohol, then deposited him and his truck in the parking lot.
It was the cop who instigated this and made the DUI charge to begin with. That tells you how far they will go to get you a criminal record. He then should have asked for a jury trial. Don’t take the chance of one idiot judge deciding your fate.
With as many aliens as we have in this country (and more flooding across the border) you’re probably right.
We’re just frogs in pot of water with the heat turned on low ... for now.
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.