A new threshold for DUI crossed....

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp

"Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"

"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. These drivers
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."

----------------

Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?

Or just another step towards a new prohibition?

The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:22:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:

> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>
> "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. These drivers
> 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."
>
> ----------------
>
> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.

cops and prosecutors have a golden rule they play by: Once tagged, you are
fair game for a target.

there was a recent case where a guy who may have been a trucker, had his
own truck parked in the driveway. He got drunk one night and went to sleep
it off in the truck. After his loving wife called the cops, he gets busted
for dui simply because he had the keys in his possession.
It made no difference the truck hadn't moved off of private property.

What are they gonna do next? Charge a guy for dui while sleeping in his own
bed in his own home?

On Jan 25, 12:22*am, Brent > wrote:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp

Citing an anonymous blog... again...?!

> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.

Not thinking of buying a car while thinking of a previous occurrence
of thinking of becoming drunk..?

One cannot help but wonder whether to admire your newfound rational
moderation or mourn the decline of your k00kY ability to extrapolate
to ridiculously childish degree.

This is a point of law in an atypical case light years beyond your
comprehension, due to a complete absence of prerequisite education, as
is always your failure.

<q>In Starfield, we reinstated the DWI conviction of a person found
behind the wheel of a vehicle that was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
and could not be moved without the assistance of a tow truck. 481 N.W.
2d at 835.

The jury found Starfield guilty, but the court of appeals reversed the
conviction, holding that the State had failed to show that the
defendant was in physical control of the vehicle. Id.

In reversing the court of appeals, we held that intent to operate is
not an element of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20. Id. at 839 (citing S.F. 223;
Journal of the Senate, p. 1633, for April 13, 1989) (noting that a
legislative attempt to add lack of intent as an affirmative defense to
Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 had been defeated).

We held that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the
evidence—Starfield behind the wheel, in her own vehicle, keys in her
pocket, towing assistance likely available—that Starfield was in
physical control of the vehicle when it was in the ditch. Id. at
838.<q>

http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/...80072-0121.pdf

Your report is obviously not, in fact or in law, the slightest
evidence suggesting any "new threshold".
-----

- gpsman

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:16:09 -0800 (PST), gpsman wrote:

> On Jan 25, 12:22Â*am, Brent > wrote:
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> Citing an anonymous blog... again...?!
>
>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>>
>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>>
>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
> Not thinking of buying a car while thinking of a previous occurrence
> of thinking of becoming drunk..?
>
> One cannot help but wonder whether to admire your newfound rational
> moderation or mourn the decline of your k00kY ability to extrapolate
> to ridiculously childish degree.
>
> This is a point of law in an atypical case light years beyond your
> comprehension, due to a complete absence of prerequisite education, as
> is always your failure.
>
> <q>In Starfield, we reinstated the DWI conviction of a person found
> behind the wheel of a vehicle that was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
> and could not be moved without the assistance of a tow truck. 481 N.W.
> 2d at 835.
>
> The jury found Starfield guilty, but the court of appeals reversed the
> conviction, holding that the State had failed to show that the
> defendant was in physical control of the vehicle. Id.
>
> In reversing the court of appeals, we held that intent to operate is
> not an element of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20. Id. at 839 (citing S.F. 223;
> Journal of the Senate, p. 1633, for April 13, 1989) (noting that a
> legislative attempt to add lack of intent as an affirmative defense to
> Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 had been defeated).
>
> We held that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the
> evidence—Starfield behind the wheel, in her own vehicle, keys in her
> pocket, towing assistance likely available—that Starfield was in
> physical control of the vehicle when it was in the ditch. Id. at
> 838.<q>
>
> http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/...80072-0121.pdf
>
> Your report is obviously not, in fact or in law, the slightest
> evidence suggesting any "new threshold".
> -----
>
> - gpsman


The whole point of the case is the fact that the prosecutor persuaded the
jury to convict Fleck based upon the man's history of charges. NOT the
actual facts at hand.

The police testified the vehicle would not start with the key. Did they
bother to check to see if it was the proper key for that vehicle? Or why
the vehicle would not start? As it is possible a key may fit and turn but
not engage the starter.

The key to a DUI charge is "DRIVING". Unless the vehicle is in a gear other
than "park", then the person behind the wheel is not driving the vehicle.

There was a case years ago in Colorado. An officer made claims to a
newspaper reporter he had stopped a man who had just left a bar, with DUI.
The following week, that charged person countered the officer's statement.
First, he was on foot, not in a vehicle. As his license had already been
suspended for a DUI. He was heading "TO" the bar. The cop lied out his ass
to save himself. Never did find out what the outcome of that case was.
But I can bet that cop has second thoughts about issuing DUI's to people on
foot.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>
> "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. These drivers
> 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.
>
Not a problem as I see it. If they aren't in the passenger seat with another
sober/designated driver behind the wheel, go ahead and charge them with DUI
if they have above the legal limit of alcohol.

> 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."
>
Good. Even an undrivable car can be still be pushed. Definitely don't want a
drunk pushing their car along a road, let alone driving it.

> ----------------
>
> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
Don't even get in your car if you are drunk, unless another sober driver is
in the driver's seat and the drunk is in the passenger seat.

> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
Prohibition against drunks getting behind the wheel of a car whether moving
or stationary? I'm all for it.

> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
Now that's just paranoia.

On Jan 25, 1:35*am, richard > wrote:
>
> The whole point of the case is the fact that the prosecutor persuaded the
> jury to convict Fleck based upon the man's history of charges. NOT the
> actual facts at hand.

Prior charges or convictions are not admissible as evidence.

"At his jury trial in August 2007, Fleck stipulated that he had three
or more prior qualified driving incidents within ten years that
constitute aggravating circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.24
(2006)."


> The police testified the vehicle would not start with the key.

"The record indicates that on the night of his arrest (11:30 p.m. on
June 11, 2007) Fleck told one of the arresting officers that the
vehicle was operable, although there is nothing in the record
indicating that the officers independently verified that fact."

"Shortly before Fleck’s trial (August 2007), one of the officers
attempted to start the vehicle with the keys found in the center
console the night of Fleck’s arrest. Although the key turned in the
ignition, the vehicle would not start."

> Did they
> bother to check to see if it was the proper key for that vehicle?

Now there's a fine legal point; it appears they eschewed checking
whether or not it was the "proper" key when it turned in the ignition.

> Or why
> the vehicle would not start?

Again, the prosecution seems to have failed to execute their due
diligence by unnecessarily having any mechanical deficiencies of the
vehicle diagnosed after "Fleck told one of the arresting officers that
the vehicle was operable."

> As it is possible a key may fit and turn but
> not engage the starter.

I guess the defense failed to present that possibility at trial. If
only you had been his lawyer...

> The key to a DUI charge is "DRIVING". Unless the vehicle is in a gear other
> than "park", then the person behind the wheel is not driving the vehicle.

I guess the courts are all ****ed up on that matter:

"Minnesota law provides that it is unlawful for “any person to drive,
operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle” while under the
influence of alcohol or with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more.
Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(1), (5). The term “physical control” is
more comprehensive than either the term to “drive” or to “operate.”

> There was a case years ago in Colorado. An officer made claims to a
> newspaper reporter he had stopped a man who had just left a bar, with DUI..
> The following week, that charged person countered the officer's statement..
> First, he was on foot, not in a vehicle. As his license had already been
> suspended for a DUI.

Right. The suspension of one's license physically prohibits one from
operating a motor vehicle, and if you say you didn't do it you're
innocent, everybody know that.

> He was heading "TO" the bar.

What a remarkable coincidence!

> The cop lied out his ass
> to save himself. Never did find out what the outcome of that case was.

Then how did you ascertain the cop lied?

> But I can bet that cop has second thoughts about issuing DUI's to people on
> foot.

How much...?
-----

- gpsman

On 2010-01-25, richard > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:16:09 -0800 (PST), gpsman wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 12:22*am, Brent > wrote:
>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>
>> Citing an anonymous blog... again...?!
>>
>>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>>>
>>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>>>
>>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>>
>> Not thinking of buying a car while thinking of a previous occurrence
>> of thinking of becoming drunk..?
>>
>> One cannot help but wonder whether to admire your newfound rational
>> moderation or mourn the decline of your k00kY ability to extrapolate
>> to ridiculously childish degree.
>>
>> This is a point of law in an atypical case light years beyond your
>> comprehension, due to a complete absence of prerequisite education, as
>> is always your failure.
>>
>> <q>In Starfield, we reinstated the DWI conviction of a person found
>> behind the wheel of a vehicle that was stuck in a snow-filled ditch
>> and could not be moved without the assistance of a tow truck. 481 N.W.
>> 2d at 835.
>>
>> The jury found Starfield guilty, but the court of appeals reversed the
>> conviction, holding that the State had failed to show that the
>> defendant was in physical control of the vehicle. Id.
>>
>> In reversing the court of appeals, we held that intent to operate is
>> not an element of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20. Id. at 839 (citing S.F. 223;
>> Journal of the Senate, p. 1633, for April 13, 1989) (noting that a
>> legislative attempt to add lack of intent as an affirmative defense to
>> Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 had been defeated).
>>
>> We held that the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the
>> evidence?Starfield behind the wheel, in her own vehicle, keys in her
>> pocket, towing assistance likely available?that Starfield was in
>> physical control of the vehicle when it was in the ditch. Id. at
>> 838.<q>
>>
>> http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/...80072-0121.pdf
>>
>> Your report is obviously not, in fact or in law, the slightest
>> evidence suggesting any "new threshold".
>> -----
>>
>> - gpsman

> The whole point of the case is the fact that the prosecutor persuaded the
> jury to convict Fleck based upon the man's history of charges. NOT the
> actual facts at hand.

Trying to explain what the courts did to lower the standard at which
someone could be tried and convicted of DUI doesn't matter to gpstroll.
Understanding isn't his purpose here. That's why he uses insult, spin,
lies, and his own stupidity to try to get responses. The difference
between an inoperable car parked at a person's residence and a car in a
ditch is something which even gpstroll would be able to figure out. A
car in a ditch was obviously being driven recently prior to entering the
ditch, regardless of engine temperature. A car parked at someone's
residence with no sign of having been operated recently could have been
there for days, weeks, months, even years or decades because unlike a
roadside ditch, a person's residence is where the car is kept.

> The police testified the vehicle would not start with the key. Did they
> bother to check to see if it was the proper key for that vehicle? Or why
> the vehicle would not start? As it is possible a key may fit and turn but
> not engage the starter.

> The key to a DUI charge is "DRIVING". Unless the vehicle is in a gear other
> than "park", then the person behind the wheel is not driving the vehicle.
>
> There was a case years ago in Colorado. An officer made claims to a
> newspaper reporter he had stopped a man who had just left a bar, with DUI.
> The following week, that charged person countered the officer's statement.
> First, he was on foot, not in a vehicle. As his license had already been
> suspended for a DUI. He was heading "TO" the bar. The cop lied out his ass
> to save himself. Never did find out what the outcome of that case was.
> But I can bet that cop has second thoughts about issuing DUI's to people on
> foot.

Maybe, maybe not.

On Jan 25, 1:03*am, richard > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:22:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent wrote:
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>
> > "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>
> > "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. These drivers
> > 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."
>
> > ----------------
>
> > Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?
>
> > Or just another step towards a new prohibition?
>
> > The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.
>
> cops and prosecutors have a golden rule they play by: Once tagged, you are
> fair game for a target.
>
> there was a recent case where a guy who may have been a trucker, had his
> own truck parked in the driveway. He got drunk one night and went to sleep
> it off in the truck. After his loving wife called the cops, he gets busted
> for dui simply because he had the keys in his possession.
> It made no difference the truck hadn't moved off of private property.
>
> What are they gonna do next? Charge a guy for dui while sleeping in his own
> bed in his own home?

Well, they've already done "public intoxication" for "over 0.08% in a
bar" so anything is possible.

nate

On Jan 24, 10:35*pm, richard > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:16:09 -0800 (PST), gpsman wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 12:22*am, Brent > wrote:
> >>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>


<snip>

> There was a case years ago in Colorado. An officer made claims to a
> newspaper reporter he had stopped a man who had just left a bar, with DUI..
> The following week, that charged person countered the officer's statement..
> First, he was on foot, not in a vehicle. As his license had already been
> suspended for a DUI. He was heading "TO" the bar. The cop lied out his ass
> to save himself. Never did find out what the outcome of that case was.
> But I can bet that cop has second thoughts about issuing DUI's to people on
> foot.- Hide quoted text -
>

So you automatically assume it is the cop who lied? You would take
the word of a drunk over a cop without question. Bet you believe in
Santa too.

Harry K

On 2010-01-25, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3030.asp
>>
>> "Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle"
>>
>> "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. These drivers
>> 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.

> Not a problem as I see it. If they aren't in the passenger seat with another
> sober/designated driver behind the wheel, go ahead and charge them with DUI
> if they have above the legal limit of alcohol.

Of course you don't see a problem... because it's only for 'bad'
people. 'good' people like you won't ever have such problems. Or maybe
you too wish to bring back prohibition through the driving back door?

>> 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."

> Good. Even an undrivable car can be still be pushed. Definitely don't want a
> drunk pushing their car along a road, let alone driving it.

So owning a car while drunk is a crime? You can't *push* a car from
inside it.


>> ----------------
>>
>> Don't get drunk enough to think your broken car works?

> Don't even get in your car if you are drunk, unless another sober driver is
> in the driver's seat and the drunk is in the passenger seat.

You just argued that it's fine to charge someone with DUI who might push
a car. You can be legally drunk, sitting on your couch watching a
football game and be able to go out and push a car.

Anyway, you want to make it illegal to sleep-it-off in a car, which
guess what? It means that people will decide it is less likely to be
caught driving drunk for a few minutes to get home than it will be
getting caught sleeping in their car for a few hours.

>> Or just another step towards a new prohibition?

> Prohibition against drunks getting behind the wheel of a car whether moving
> or stationary? I'm all for it.

>> The end of this road is DUI for owning a car while drunk.

> Now that's just paranoia.

Your argument is getting pretty close to just what I wrote. I've just
extended what has been going on for the past 25 years or so a couple
steps ahead. But it's fascinating to me that this is considered paranoia
when it's a simple prediction of a steady increase in the power of the
government to regulate and control our lives. Something that has been
on-going for decades. Even more fascinating is that when a government
type slaps down a much more unreasonable extrapolation it's considered
kooky and paranoid not to believe it, like global warming.