Man arrested for DUI in NJ for sleeping in parked car

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 10:14 AM

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle
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.

So if you're drunk, just go ahead and drive home so you don't get charged $3000 for sleeping it off in your car.

This is the biggest amount of bullshit I've read in a while.

Stylerod · 09-05-2007, 10:38 AM

Yeah, that sucks. But if you are a cop and see drunk drivers every day and also see the carnage that they can create, do you really take the chance that this drunk who is in a running car will not decide to take off home after you leave?

I could see not leaving him there. Maybe having the guy call someone to pick him up to make sure he didn't drive would have been the right thing to do.

AVengeance · 09-05-2007, 10:39 AM

the car was running. In his inebriated state, he could have easily put the car in gear. He might have had more of a case if the car wasn't running.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

the car was running. In his inebriated state, he could have easily put the car in gear. He might have had more of a case if the car wasn't running.

It was below freezing outside. The car was running so he wouldn't DIE

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:31 AM

I dunno, that's kinda iffy.
I mean he was in his car with the car running.
How do they know that he didn't just get in his car intending to drive it home and then pass out behind the wheel before he got going?
I think the bottom line is if you are in control of a motor vehicle while drunk, you get cited for DUI.
Sitting in a running car is being in control of the car.
I agree that this guy probably wasn't going to drive the car, maybe he really was sleeping it off. But you can't allow that to be an excuse. It's too much of a gray area and it would allow drunk people to get away with DUI in some instances. the dude SHOULD have called a cab or a friend to come get him and take him home. If he knew he drove to the bar, he should not have gotten so drunk that he coudln't drive himself home.

hsmith · 09-05-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno, that's kinda iffy.
I mean he was in his car with the car running.
How do they know that he didn't just get in his car intending to drive it home and then pass out behind the wheel before he got going?
I think the bottom line is if you are in control of a motor vehicle while drunk, you get cited for DUI.
Sitting in a running car is being in control of the car.
I agree that this guy probably wasn't going to drive the car, maybe he really was sleeping it off. But you can't allow that to be an excuse. It's too much of a gray area and it would allow drunk people to get away with DUI in some instances. the dude SHOULD have called a cab or a friend to come get him and take him home. If he knew he drove to the bar, he should not have gotten so drunk that he coudln't drive himself home.

So would you rather someone sit and sleep while drunk in their car or risk driving home because they would get a ticket even if they were trying to be somewhat safe?

Our laws are so fucked.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

So would you rather someone sit and sleep while drunk in their car or risk driving home because they would get a ticket even if they were trying to be somewhat safe?

Our laws are so fucked.

None of the above. I would rather people who drive to a bar not get so drunk that they can't drive home. If they did get that drunk, I would rather that they call a cab or a friend for a ride. If you can afford to get drunk but can't afford a cab ride, and have no friends.. I don't know if I have any pity. Start walking.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 11:41 AM

Last I checked DUI meant DRIVING under the influence & DWI meant DRIVING while intoxicated. Someone tell me how sleeping in a parked car constitutes driving just because the car is running.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

Last I checked DUI meant DRIVING under the influence & DWI meant DRIVING while intoxicated. Someone tell me how sleeping in a parked car constitutes driving.

What constitutes driving? Does the car have to be moving? What if you stop at a red light? are you no longer driving?So if a cop pulls up next to you while you are stupid drunk, but stopped at a traffic light, you can't be arrested?

hsmith · 09-05-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

None of the above. I would rather people who drive to a bar not get so drunk that they can't drive home. If they did get that drunk, I would rather that they call a cab or a friend for a ride. If you can afford to get drunk but can't afford a cab ride, and have no friends.. I don't know if I have any pity. Start walking.

ok, now welcome to the "real world"

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

hsmith · 09-05-2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

Last I checked DUI meant DRIVING under the influence & DWI meant DRIVING while intoxicated. Someone tell me how sleeping in a parked car constitutes driving just because the car is running.

you can get a dui for riding a bicycle drunk

Phantom · 09-05-2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What constitutes driving? Does the car have to be moving? What if you stop at a red light? are you no longer driving?So if a cop pulls up next to you while you are stupid drunk, but stopped at a traffic light, you can't be arrested?

I think (not sure) in VA all you need is the key in the ignition.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What constitutes driving? Does the car have to be moving? What if you stop at a red light? are you no longer driving?So if a cop pulls up next to you while you are stupid drunk, but stopped at a traffic light, you can't be arrested?

How about having the vehicle in gear and/or being seen operating the vehicle? Your argument about stop lights is idiotic for two reasons:

1.) it would be almost impossible to tell that a driver is drunk when sitting still at a red light, given that you have not seen the vehicle in motion.
2.) even if an officer COULD tell that the driver was drunk while at a dead stop, there can be a reasonable assumption that the driver is driving the vehicle considering it is on the road at a red light.

In summation, nice straw man. Now let's get back to a real argument.

If the vehicle is parked in a parking lot and turned on to provide heat with a sleeping occupant, there can be no reasonable assumption that the individual is driving the vehicle under the influence/while intoxicated.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:53 AM

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?

Nothing I said was unreasonable, and people do it all the time. In fact most bars will call you a cab if you can't drive home.

Given the false choice between the 2 abritrary options you listed, I would rather the person not drive home and put others at risk, however they can and should still be cited for being intoxicated, getting in thier car and sitting in the drivers seat while the car is running.

The responsible choice would have been not to get drunk if he had no way to get home.

So his first irresponsible action was to get drunk in the first place.
If he was drunk and could not drive, the next responsible action would have been to call a friend or a cab. He made irresponsible choice #2 and got in his car instead.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think (not sure) in VA all you need is the key in the ignition.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

So why not draw it at actually driving the vehicle? That would only seem logical, given that the charge is for DRIVING under the influence/while intoxicated.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

How about having the vehicle in gear and/or being seen operating the vehicle? Your argument about stop lights is idiotic for two reasons:

1.) it would be almost impossible to tell that a driver is drunk when sitting still at a red light, given that you have not seen the vehicle in motion.
2.) even if an officer COULD tell that the driver was drunk while at a dead stop, there can be a reasonable assumption that the driver is driving the vehicle considering it is on the road at a red light.

In summation, nice straw man. Now let's get back to a real argument.

If the vehicle is parked in a parking lot and turned on to provide heat with a sleeping occupant, there can be no reasonable assumption that the individual is driving the vehicle under the influence/while intoxicated.

It's not a straw man arguement at all. If you have a law that prohibits DUI, then you need to define DUI in the first place. If "driving" is a condition, you need to define driving. In most places, if you are in the car, and the car is running, you are driving, legally speaking. The infraction is very serious and as such there is very little tolerance.

Drunk guy gets in car, starts car, passes out behind the wheel. Sorry, that's a DUI. I don't feel bad for him.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

So why not draw it at actually driving the vehicle? That would only seem logical, given that the charge is for DRIVING under the influence/while intoxicated.

Because then you have to wait for the drunk to actually drive his car away and potentially injure or kill someone before stopping them?

POlice watch bars all the time for people stumbling out drunk and getting into thier cars. Should they wait for the drunk to pull out onto the road and risk getting into a chase? If you want to prevent drunk driving, you have to set the threshold lower.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Because then you have to wait for the drunk to actually drive his car away and potentially injure or kill someone before stopping them?

POlice watch bars all the time for people stumbling out drunk and getting into thier cars. Should they wait for the drunk to pull out onto the road and risk getting into a chase? If you want to prevent drunk driving, you have to set the threshold lower.

So if I call a cab but realize that it isn't a good idea to leave my CDs in my car over night, so I go out to my car to get my CDs and turn it on so I can eject the CD in the player, you think I'm guilty of drunk driving?

And actually it's rare that police stop people from moving their vehicle when they come out of a bar anyway, usually they wait until the individual gets into the vehicle and starts driving before they stop and arrest them.

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

So if I call a cab but realize that it isn't a good idea to leave my CDs in my car, so I go out to my car to get my CDs and turn it on so I can eject the CD in the player, you think I'm guilty of drunk driving?

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