Posted on 02/16/2011 8:22:34 AM PST by big black dog
The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. At 11:30pm on June 11, 2007, police found Daryl Fleck sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The vehicle's engine was cold to the touch, indicating it had not been driven recently. The keys were in the center console, not the ignition. Fleck admitted to having consumed around a dozen beers that night. Officers at the scene arrested him, and his blood alcohol level was found to be .18. A few weeks after Fleck's vehicle was impounded, a police officer tested the vehicle using the keys found in the car's center console.
"Although the key turned in the ignition, the vehicle would not start," Justice Alan C. Page explained in the unanimous decision.
Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that "towing assistance [was] likely available" creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could "easily" be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having "dominion and control" with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account.
As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck's case to expand the precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven -- and perhaps undrivable -- car into the definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck's drunken claim that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the contrary.
"Although the facts of this case are not those of the typical physical control case in which a jury can infer that the defendant was in physical control because he drove the vehicle to where it came to rest, a jury could reasonably find that Fleck, having been found intoxicated, alone, and sleeping behind the wheel of his own vehicle with the keys in the vehicle's console, was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle and that he could, without too much difficulty, make the vehicle a source of danger," Page wrote. "Based on the totality of the circumstances, the facts in the record, and the legitimate inferences drawn from them, we hold that a jury could reasonably conclude that Fleck was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more."
Fleck's three prior convictions elevated his sentence to a felony for which the trial judge imposed four years in prison. A copy of the decision is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.
Dude’s taken too many hits to the helmet in his Vikings days.
Kind of makes me wonder though. My 1978 Camaro project car doesn't have a drive shaft and is up on blocks while I do some tranny work on it. I usually have a beer or two while working on it.
These guys try and hit me for a DUI for that and the S will well and truly HTF.
I’ve lived most of my life in a rural area.
For years I worked as a volunteer to pick up and drive folks home. It was a service that my boss liked having us do, because we could advertise his delivery business by showing off his drivers to potential customers.
So we would do pick up and ride. It was great. You keep folks off the roads, and everyone gets home safe.
I’ve driven countless folks home as a designated driver. It’s really not a big deal!
People HAVE been convicted for "use of a gun in the commission of a drug crime" for simply having a gun in the house when raided for drugs. See, they claimed the gun was used to protect the drugs.
We got everybody home without problems.
there has to be more to this case.
seems like the lawyer did not make a car was dead at the time argument.
Was the battery dead before, during or after?
That was a smart boss!! And ideally, this business should take off and be very successful.
My point is simple. When a person makes a mistake (gets too drunk to drive); and tries to correct it before something bad happens (realizes he’s too drunk and pulls over and sleep it off) punishing him for his mistake is both counter-productive and stupid. There is no proof that he was drunk when he got behind the wheel, suspicion - not proof.
What lesson was taught? Next time take your chances. Odds are that you may make it home without incident. If you try to act responsible - you will be punished the same as if you were driving irresponibly.
If you want more of a behavior, you reward it. If you want less of a behavior, you punish it.
To get a DUI, you should be actively DRIVING. Not sleeping, not parked - but driving. Under the present rules, I could (if I drank) stagger to my car, start the engine to get the heater going (while I wait for my taxi to arrive) and get busted for DWI - without ever having intent of driving, or even engaging in the activity of driving.
The list of possible abuses of this ‘power’ are infinite. If only you had a stolen credit card, you ‘would’ have used it to buy merchandice. If only you had drugs, you ‘would’ have sold them. If only you had....
In related news, all men will be charged with rape and all women will be charged with prostitution, because, as the Supreme Court of Minnesota says, both groups have "dominion and control" of their genitalia, and so, there is potential for a crime to occur.
Drunk driving should be drunk+driving.
Next thing, they will be able to give DUIs out for driving in the direction of a liquor store.
I disagree.
Say there is a suspension bridge with a big net below to catch people who fall. Do you stand on the edge of the suspension bridge and walk across, or do you stand on the walkway, holding onto both sides?
If someone is going out to drink, he needs to have a plan before he goes out as to how he is getting home. That is the behaviour that the state should be encouraging, a bit of foresight.
Getting in your car, so drunk that you can’t drive and getting behind the wheel before finally realizing that you are too drunk to drive? That is the last stop. It’s like the net at the bottom. Sure it might catch you, but it could also break and you would die anyways.
Yeah, my boss was smart. Out of business now, his kiddo was very sick and they had to relocate.
By this logic, being drunk while walking on the street while have car keys should land you in the clink for DWI? Or if you own a car then you can take a cab to - you should be convicted of DWI.
This is overreach. This is Pre-Crime from the “Minority Report”, written by Philip K Dick. They are now arresting and convicting people for crimes they might commit. This is unAmerican, replete with Soviet style logic.
The "logic" of this and previous rulings makean argument like that perfectly reasonable. It's not even a stretch.
In 1959 i was the designated driver on a Deuce and a Half GMC taking non-sober troops from Elizabethtown back to the field maneuvers(outside of FT. Bragg/ White Lake area) after a night in town. The CO and I were the only ones sober. I was his Jeep driver into town and he drove the Jeep back to the woods.
Up is down, down is up, good is bad, bad is good, moral is immoral, immoral is moral....
Brave New World...............
In your example, if he "pulled over", then he was. driving under the influence.
If he was passed out in a parking slot in the bar's parking lot, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
On the side of the road between the bar and home? Bust him! He and the vehicle weren't dropped there by helicopter...
Horribly counterproductive. There needs to be an option for a drunk person to make a good decision. Somebody that realizes that they have had too much to drink and shouldn’t be driving ought to have the option of pulling over, parking someplace safe, and sleeping it off.
That’s a far better than ultimately forcing them to keep going all the way home.
From the MADD website...'Designated drivers are the ones who get fans home from the game safe and sound. That's why MADD urges everyone to plan ahead by designating a sober driver.' Surely to goodness MADD should be mad as stink when a program such as ensuring a designated driver is appointed runs into this sort of crap. It would be interesting to see what they have to say as it completely undermines what they are trying to promote.
If the LEO read FR, please don't post stuff like that and give them any ideas.
This is where details matter. I wasn't there, don't know. Maybe he took 4 shots and then drove home before they hit. On the way home, he felt the effects and pulled over to sleep it off. What was his Blood Alcohol content when he pulled over? You don't know, I certainly don't know and the Officer doesn't have a bloody clue. He could have been 0.05, 0.01 or 0.15 - so, on the 'assumption' that he was over the legal limit, he was given a ticket.
I have a philosphical problem with allowing anyone to give tickets, fines or punishments based upon 'assumption'. I have the equipment to be a rapist, is it fair to assume I am one?
You catch the person in the act of committing the crime, whether it's speeding, DUI or failing to stop. You need evidence that a law was broken. For all the officer knew, he could have driven out in the middle of nowhere, sat in his car and drank himself into a stupor - using his car as nothing more than a warm place to sleep.
On the side of the road between the bar and home? Bust him! He and the vehicle weren't dropped there by helicopter...
Pray tell, where on earth is it possible to NOT park between your home and a bar? This is a physical impossibility, as there are more than a few bars on this planet.
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.