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?
I’ve spoken with several people today regarding this (one who happens to have a brother who’s a LEO.)
Apparently this is the norm, and has been for quite awhile.
From the article: “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.”
According to him, the vehicle does not even need to have been “recently driven”. In the vehicle with the keys is enough to convict (and has been).
I’m surprised this hasn’t ended up in front of the State Supreme Court sooner.
I think it’s time to rewrite the law. Or at least rename it.
“Driving” under the influence hardly seems appropriate.