Man arrested for DUI in NJ for sleeping in parked car

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by hsmith

ok, now welcome to the "real world"

would you rather people sleep in their car to sober up or drive home drunk?

That is false logic, it has nothing to do with this thread.

The cop was reasonable in his actions, the car was running and he knew that guy had some drinks..you cannot expect the cop to discern the true intent of the driver or predict what he would do in the future. Perhaps if the cop wasn't there - or just let the guy be - he would of woke up still a bit a drunk and drive home thinking he was ok - what if someone got hit? If the cop did nothing we would be saying he was negligent

Bottom line, no one knows - not even the driver - exactly what could of happened had the cop not been there. He could of got home safe or he caused a horrific accident. Being drunk behind the wheel is proven beyond doubt to impair driving, he had the means (the car and it was running) and was drunk, dangerous combination.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No. You don't have to start the car to get the CD out of the CD player.

Phantom said that in Virginia he thinks putting the key in the ignition constitutes drunk driving. If you have a CD player in your car that you can easily remove a CD from without any power, I'd like to know the model.

Further, you argued that police should stop a drunk before they get on the road, so in my hypothetical I should be stopped for drunk driving before I get the car turned on and get out of the parking lot. If I argue that I was just getting my CDs, I'd still be arrested most likely and you'd sit here saying, "well obviously you were just trying to get out of the arrest!"

We can argue back and forth about this all day long, trying to get closer and closer to the line that was drawn. Hey what if you get in the car, put the key in the ignotion, but not quite all the way in? Hey what if you have one of those new Nissans with the push button and you don't even need to put a key in the ignition to start it? what then? What if you are in the car, it's running but you are in the back seat? What if you are by yourself, or what if a sober person is in the car as well?

It's a mistake becuase you will always be able to come up with some situation, no matter how improbable, that fits the definition of the crime but doesn't quite seem like it is "right". That ignores the fact that the line DOES have to be drawn somewhere, and you have to recognize that there will be sitiuations like this. If you accept that DUI is a serious crime with potentially deadly consequences, you have to have a zero tolerance threshold about it.

I thiink that the line should be set to that you don't create loopholes that would allow a drunk to avoid prosecution. Saying that the car has to be moving is such a loophole. If the car has to be moving, than my analogy with the drunk at a stop light is perfectly valid and is an illustration as to why your line would risk more lives and allow drunks to avoid prosecution for DUI.

If we take the zero tolerance line, then yea, once every 10 years or so you will get a guy like this. That's a cost that I am willing to accept since it was this guys responsibility to know the rules and he broke the rules. He should have called a cab.

I'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent man be put in jail. My point with my example, and you're reinforcing it with all your examples, is that a black-and-white zero tolerance law like you're suggesting leaves no room for rational discourse and logical decision-making on the part of the officer.

I never said the line should be that the car is moving, I said that the line should be that the car is in gear or the individual is actually operating the vehicle. A sleeping man sitting in a running car is obviously not operating the vehicle. A drunk sitting at a stop light obviously is. Where is the logical disconnect here for you?

[Donkey®]

If you look at the facts of the case, the cops were right. You can pose all the hypotheticals you want...doesn't change the facts of THIS case.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If you look at the facts of the case, the cops were right. You can pose all the hypotheticals you want...doesn't change the facts of THIS case.

the fact that he was sleeping in a running car? yes, he's obviously operating a motor vehicle in his sleep.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Publius

the fact that he was sleeping in a running car? yes, he's obviously operating a motor vehicle in his sleep.

He was DRUNK in a running car. Your "sleeping" could have been "passed out drunk" no?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He was DRUNK in a running car. Your "sleeping" could have been "passed out drunk" no?

Except that the man asserts he went to sleep intentionally because he knew he wasn't fit to drive. But of course you're going to assume he's lying and actually just passed out before he could get the car into gear, because everyone knows that in our legal system a defendant is assumed guilty until they are proven innocent.

Oh wait...

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Publius

Except that the man asserts he went to sleep intentionally because he knew he wasn't fit to drive. But of course you're going to assume he's lying and actually just passed out before he could get the car into gear, because everyone knows that in our legal system a defendant is assumed guilty until they are proven innocent.

Oh wait...

Fact: vehicle was running
Fact: man was drunk and inside vehicle.
Fact: a vehicle that is running can be put under power in gear, even accidentally, and with little effort.
Fact: you are "operating" a motor vehicle when you turn the key on, regardless of what "gear" it is in when you are observed operating it. if you are actuating its controls, turning its steering mechanism, applying the hydraulic brakes, running the engine, or any other number of things, you are the operator of the motor vehicle.

Assertation (by defendant): I didn't intend to drive, I intended to sleep with vehicle not moving.



It looks as though the facts support his guilt.

I could see a drunk arguing that he fell asleep BEFORE crashing into the building or victim, and therefore wasn't DUI, but rather asleep at the wheel. Splitting hairs? Not if this guy got away with it in this case.

This guy made the choice to put himself in the position he was found in. Perhaps he will avoid being a drunken fuckwad next time.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Phantom said that in Virginia he thinks putting the key in the ignition constitutes drunk driving. If you have a CD player in your car that you can easily remove a CD from without any power, I'd like to know the model.

Further, you argued that police should stop a drunk before they get on the road, so in my hypothetical I should be stopped for drunk driving before I get the car turned on and get out of the parking lot. If I argue that I was just getting my CDs, I'd still be arrested most likely and you'd sit here saying, "well obviously you were just trying to get out of the arrest!"



I'd rather have 100 guilty people go free than one innocent man be put in jail. My point with my example, and you're reinforcing it with all your examples, is that a black-and-white zero tolerance law like you're suggesting leaves no room for rational discourse and logical decision-making on the part of the officer.

I never said the line should be that the car is moving, I said that the line should be that the car is in gear or the individual is actually operating the vehicle. A sleeping man sitting in a running car is obviously not operating the vehicle. A drunk sitting at a stop light obviously is. Where is the logical disconnect here for you?

Not that this is really here nor there, but alot of after-market CD players will allow you to eject the CD without starting the car, and some factory stock ones as well. The CD player in my old mustang did that. This is irrelevant though.


The problem with your reasoning is that you leave out the part where people are responsible for knowing the law. The people you describe are not innocent. We aren't sending any innocent people to jail. If your actions violate the law, you are not innocent. You can't really bring up the innocent until proven guilty thing because It's moot. If you agree that the person took an action that violates the law, you can not then say that they are innocent. If you know that it's illegal to get in your car and put your key in the ignition while you are drunk, but you do it anyway, regardless of your reason for doing so, you knowingly broke the law and should be held responsible.

I will say that I think the officer should always have discretion, and if he saw you open the door to your car, grab some CD's, and then leave the car, I doubt that any rational officer would try and cite you for DUI, despite your actions violating the letter of the law. That's just reality and cops aren't just out to get people for fun. However you should know that in so doing, you are violating the law and you are taking your chances. That's your choice.

However, the law is set where it is for a reason. It's your responsibulity to know it. If you violate the law and then argue that it's unfair, you don't get off free. If you think the law is unfair, talk to your state representative.
I personally don't think that it's unfair to set the limit where it has been set. If you get in the car and you start the car and you are drunk, it's a DUI. That's reasonable.

[Ardentfrost]

At a local bar, if cops are watching for drunk drivers coming from the bar they sit about 100 feet down the road and as soon as the drivers pull onto the road, they pull them over (if they have reason to suspect drunken driving). It would be a police state if they were able to give breathalysers to anyone stepping from the bar, or even getting into cars. Sitting in a parked car, even while running, should not be illegal if you are drunk. To say that people cannot act responsibly by letting their drunkenness subside while sitting in their own parked car is retarded. Them doing that is not driving, it is not dangerous, and as soon as they start the car moving while intoxicated, I'm completely for arresting the person.

Even if this guy completely intended to drive while drunk and just passed out instead, he still wasn't driving yet and no one was in danger. He had been asleep for at least a couple hours (since it was 5 AM when the cop found him), and was a danger to no one.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

At a local bar, if cops are watching for drunk drivers coming from the bar they sit about 100 feet down the road and as soon as the drivers pull onto the road, they pull them over (if they have reason to suspect drunken driving). It would be a police state if they were able to give breathalysers to anyone stepping from the bar, or even getting into cars. Sitting in a parked car, even while running, should not be illegal if you are drunk. To say that people cannot act responsibly by letting their drunkenness subside while sitting in their own parked car is retarded. Them doing that is not driving, it is not dangerous, and as soon as they start the car moving while intoxicated, I'm completely for arresting the person.

Even if this guy completely intended to drive while drunk and just passed out instead, he still wasn't driving yet and no one was in danger. He had been asleep for at least a couple hours (since it was 5 AM when the cop found him), and was a danger to no one.

Too many assumptions. You're basing your 5am time thing on the fact last call is a certain time but you're not taking into account he could have been drinking on his own without help of a bar. And if he "intended" to drive...that's intent.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Not that this is really here nor there, but alot of after-market CD players will allow you to eject the CD without starting the car, and some factory stock ones as well. The CD player in my old mustang did that. This is irrelevant though.


The problem with your reasoning is that you leave out the part where people are responsible for knowing the law. The people you describe are not innocent. We aren't sending any innocent people to jail. If your actions violate the law, you are not innocent. You can't really bring up the innocent until proven guilty thing because It's moot. If you agree that the person took an action that violates the law, you can not then say that they are innocent. If you know that it's illegal to get in your car and put your key in the ignition while you are drunk, but you do it anyway, regardless of your reason for doing so, you knowingly broke the law and should be held responsible.

I will say that I think the officer should always have discretion, and if he saw you open the door to your car, grab some CD's, and then leave the car, I doubt that any rational officer would try and cite you for DUI, despite your actions violating the letter of the law. That's just reality and cops aren't just out to get people for fun. However you should know that in so doing, you are violating the law and you are taking your chances. That's your choice.

However, the law is set where it is for a reason. It's your responsibulity to know it. If you violate the law and then argue that it's unfair, you don't get off free. If you think the law is unfair, talk to your state representative.
I personally don't think that it's unfair to set the limit where it has been set. If you get in the car and you start the car and you are drunk, it's a DUI. That's reasonable.

The problem with YOUR reasoning is that you assume that laws are right. It's not right for a man to be arrested in a car turned on and the heat on, sleeping off his drunk, when it's 25 degrees outside. The guy had done NOTHING that endangers anyone, not even himself.

The law was fuzzy before this case also. The judge upheld the cop's position that even though he wasn't ACTUALLY driving the car, he was still a candidate for DUI. All this case means is that the guy got screwed by the cop and the judge, and now people have to live with a restriction on the ways in which they can be responsible drinkers.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

At a local bar, if cops are watching for drunk drivers coming from the bar they sit about 100 feet down the road and as soon as the drivers pull onto the road, they pull them over (if they have reason to suspect drunken driving). It would be a police state if they were able to give breathalysers to anyone stepping from the bar, or even getting into cars. Sitting in a parked car, even while running, should not be illegal if you are drunk. To say that people cannot act responsibly by letting their drunkenness subside while sitting in their own parked car is retarded. Them doing that is not driving, it is not dangerous, and as soon as they start the car moving while intoxicated, I'm completely for arresting the person.

Even if this guy completely intended to drive while drunk and just passed out instead, he still wasn't driving yet and no one was in danger. He had been asleep for at least a couple hours (since it was 5 AM when the cop found him), and was a danger to no one.

You can't assume that drunks will make rational decisions. I'd rather err on the side of saftey and set the threshold lower. Don't give people the option of getting drunk, getting in their cars and starting the motors. Make that the threshold. If you are drunk, you can't sleep it off in a running car. Call a cab or call a friend. The risks are too high. The inconvenience to you is mininal having to call someone to get you, and the potential risk to soceity far outweighs you being inconvenienced.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Too many assumptions. You're basing your 5am time thing on the fact last call is a certain time but you're not taking into account he could have been drinking on his own without help of a bar. And if he "intended" to drive...that's intent.

It doesn't matter if he drank with or without the bar, he was STILL found to be sleeping in a parked car that was running for heat in below freezing weather. He certainly intended to drive eventually, but unless the law can prove that he intended to drive BEFORE he was no longer drunk, then the guy is innocent. But instead of doing that, they just changed the law to include parked cars.

Welcome to authoritarianism.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You can't assume that drunks will make rational decisions. I'd rather err on the side of saftey and set the threshold lower. Don't give people the option of getting drunk, getting in their cars and starting the motors. Make that the threshold. If you are drunk, you can't sleep it off in a running car. Call a cab or call a friend. The risks are too high. The inconvenience to you is mininal having to call someone to get you, and the potential risk to soceity far outweighs you being inconvenienced.

I can assume that he's innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't driving, they said he was operating the car, the judge ruled that it counts. No laws on the books said he couldn't sleep in a running car. The judge decided that it counts for this case (which means it is now the case for everyone in that state).

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The problem with YOUR reasoning is that you assume that laws are right. It's not right for a man to be arrested in a car turned on and the heat on, sleeping off his drunk, when it's 25 degrees outside. The guy had done NOTHING that endangers anyone, not even himself.

The law was fuzzy before this case also. The judge upheld the cop's position that even though he wasn't ACTUALLY driving the car, he was still a candidate for DUI. All this case means is that the guy got screwed by the cop and the judge, and now people have to live with a restriction on the ways in which they can be responsible drinkers.

I disagree. There was nothing to stop him from waking up and driving off still being drunk and not realizing it. Being inebriated effects your judgement. You should not be at the wheel of a running car when you are drunk. The risk is way to high. The responsible thing for this man to do would be to call a cab or call a friend and go home to sleep it off.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I can assume that he's innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't driving, they said he was operating the car, the judge ruled that it counts. No laws on the books said he couldn't sleep in a running car. The judge decided that it counts for this case (which means it is now the case for everyone in that state).

If his actions fit the letter of the law, then no he is not innocent. The judges decision was correct as it furthers the 'no tolerance' policy for drunk driving and makes everyone that hears about it even more aware that they shoudln't even get in thier car if they are drunk. This policy saves lives and the cost is virtually nothing in terms of infringing on anyones rights. Oh sorry, you had to call a cab instead of sleeping in your car. Pardon me if I don't have any pity.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I disagree. There was nothing to stop him from waking up and driving off still being drunk and not realizing it. Being inebriated effects your judgement. You should not be at the wheel of a running car when you are drunk. The risk is way to high. The responsible thing for this man to do would be to call a cab or call a friend and go home to sleep it off.

I don't know if you drink or not, but I know when I'm drunk and I know when I needn't be driving. I'm the kind of person who sticks around at the bar drinking water toward the end of the night to sober up to drive home, but people aren't forced to do it that way. The fact that he wasn't driving his car makes me think he was trying to be responsible. And the fact of the matter is, since he's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, that should be the base assumption unless the officer can prove otherwise.

Off-topic question, would you still be so zealous to crucify him if the car HADN'T been running? Like, if it were spring and the guy was found sleeping off a drunk in a parked car in a bar parking lot