Minnesota Supreme Court upholds DWI conviction in which was sleeping in vehicle with cold engine, keys were on the console, and the vehicle was likely inoperable. Up next, Minnesota Supreme Court upholds DWI conviction of man who passes out while clutching a Matchbox car.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 8:30 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Well, Republicans are the party that gave us perhaps the most pathetic excuse for a president in history. The Democrats gave us a presidential candidate so bad, he couldn’t even beat the most pathetic president in history.
So, is it conceivable that the Republicans could pick Palin and the Democrats would again pick someone even less appealing? You betcha!
The video may very well be evidence, but since it was not IN THE commission of a crime, the government needs a warrant to obtain it. Like a security video taken from a businesses front door the police can’t just come in, and take the video, they need a warrant.
I agree it is a start, but it has not started yet, because yes the union is fighting the possible suspension along with him. Fifteen days is not enough in my opinion. Once he grabbed her arm on her own stoop preventing her from reentering her home that constituted a false arrest, and he should be punished for that.
He is being punished not for the BS he committed against her, but for not following his superiors orders.
In other words he is being punished for CONTEMPT OF A HIGHER RANKING COP.
re: literary drug addicts: What no Arthur Conan Doyle? No Coleridge? And did Ayn Rand really do speed? About all I remember on the topic is her denunciation of drug addicts. Obviously she smoked a ton, but they didn’t seem to be counting nicotine in their list of literary drugs.
Well the DUI ruling is consistent with everything so far. For years now, they’ve been charging people who aren’t drunk with drunk driving (I think most people are not too intoxicated to drive at .08 BAC, but if you test at .08 or above you are automatically a drunk driver). So the next logical step is to also charge people who are not driving.
Cynical in CA |
January 27th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“Minnesota Supreme Court upholds DWI conviction in which was sleeping in vehicle with cold engine, keys were on the console, and the vehicle was likely inoperable.”
Anybody in the Chicago area who’s interested in literature and booze needs to know about the Drinking & Writing Brewery. It’s not an actual brewery; it’s an offshoot of a local theater group. Anyway, I saw their current show (“To Cure A Hangover”) this past weekend and there was lots of John Cheever as well as some Faulkner and Bukowski. As somebody who doesn’t read as much as he should but drinks MORE than he should, their shows make me feel literate–if for only a couple of hours.
ktc2 beat me to it, but I’m sure that they are entirely correct. If it’s OK to prevent possession of a weapon within 1000 feet of a school, then it will certainly be found constitutional to ban possession of car keys within 1000 feet of the car they are for when you are above whatever level of blood alcohol they happen to choose. It’s only a matter of time until the law is passed.
Cynical in CA |
January 27th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“it will certainly be found constitutional to ban possession of car keys within 1000 feet of the car they are for when you are above whatever level of blood alcohol they happen to …”
Andrew#23, I …er…have some bad news for you.
Your worst case scenario has already happened.
“Stop Sales to Intoxicated Persons was unpopular with taverns and patrons for obvious reasons. But it wasn’t until a TABC agent arrested a woman drinking in an Irving hotel bar in March 2006 that the program provoked a widespread outcry.
The arrest arguably did not prevent a DWI; the woman had a room at the hotel that night. The TABC agent contended she was a danger to herself because she had no one to escort her to her room.”
I give it 6 months before the Texas authorities (we know what they’re like) start arresting people for DUI while they’re still at the bar.
I don’t remember if it was in Texas, but this has already happened. At the behest of MADD, a bunch of cops rolled into a bar and handed out DUI’s to everyone there, with no evidence that they’d driven or intended to drive. I spent a little while trying to google this but I couldn’t find it. If anyone knows what I’m talking about and has a link, please share.
It used to be that LEOs (heroes) used to falsely arrest (mostly) young black males. FWIW, not deemed sympathetic enough when/if they file complaints (First they came for my neighbor…). To bad as LEOs are now emboldened to shit on everyone. Now the LEOs (amazing heroes all) are increasingly falsely arresting moms, middle-aged parents, even non-minorities. Kudos to the Toledo woman for relating it to rape. Not hyperbole IMO. Lawyers really need to start smelling $$ and raping cities for all they’re worth until those cities stop hand-jobbing police unions and start demanding better.
Now for the police union. FUCK THE POLICE UNION. There’s your “counciling session at best”.
Good cops cover for bad cops making them bad cops.
I certainly loathe Democrats more than Republicans, but just how damned stupid can these people get? It seems like the more insane the candidate, the more support. Explains Ron Paul’s showings in the primaries.
Toledo woman arrested, jailed for 18 hours for videotaping cop. Charges were dropped, cop is serving a 15-day suspension. That’s at least a start.
I think the public has a right to know who these cops are that abuse people instead of serving and protecting them. I mean, essentially, these guys are committing assault and kidnapping when they arrest someone for no legitimate reason. That’s serious stuff.
Shouldn’t there be some kind of list so the public can know who these guys are? You know, like a no-fly list or…. or…. I got it! A power abuse offender registry! In fact, we could make them have special license plates and a unique badge that identifies them as known civilian abusers that are, as I’m sure the statistics would show, likely to offend again. Surely it would be a simple matter to include them under the same rules that dictate where other types of offenders can live.
And the best part of all is that the city would be quick to understand the need for such a program since they have already promoted such programs for other offenders who practice assault and kidnapping.
I’m not sure I can really fault the Minnesota Supreme Court. The law, as written, is very bad, apparently criminalizing not driving drunk, but “being in control of” while drunk. As I see no constitutional violation here, to overturn this case, they’d have to say that “no reasonable jury” could find he was in control of the car.
I blame the legislature, for not writing a better law, and the cops for not exercising just a little bit of discretion.
Jeffrey Quick |
January 27th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
SUMMIT Co., one next to mine (Akron, not Toledo)…unlike Toledo, they still have a pretense of law here.
@#26 it was in Fairfax County, Virginia where they did that.
Steamed McQueen |
January 27th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Not surprising that this comes from Minnesota, the state that stays up nights looking for ways to monetize their criminal justice system. To wit:
It doesn’t matter what you get hauled in for, Minnesota will make you pay -dearly- for your own arrest.
Once in their jail, you will pay around $30 / day for the privilege of being locked in a 7 x12 cell for around 20 hours per day.
Want to make a phone call? Collect only, averages $2 /minute. Pretty sure the jail gets a chunk of the phone revenue.
Meals, such as they are are woefully inadequate. Not to worry, you can buy from the vending machine right there in the dayroom… as long as you don’t mind paying $1.85 for a single pack of ramen or $2.00 for a bottle of soda.
Don’t lose or break your jail -issued spork, else it’s $5 for a replacement.
You will be charged $20 / week for laundry.
Once you do get out, there are a near-endless amount of releasing fees, court fees, probation fees, etc.
It gets much worse financially if you get hauled in for a DWI. Then you have to pay for the ankle monitoring, the victims impact panel, the victims compensation fund, etc.
#33 – You can’t let the judges off so easy. Are they not supposedly playing a part in a system of checks and balances?
As a Minnesotan, I wonder how close I [i]can[/i] get to a car while drunk without being guilty of DUI. Can I drink with my keys in my pocket? How close am I allowed to get to my car when drunk? Can I run out to get something from my glove box? Can have a beer while working on my car?
From the opinion:
“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.”
If being in physical control of a vehicle merely requires me to be “in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle,” then I wonder under what circumstances I would not be considered to be in control of a vehicle.
Under those criteria? None. No matter what a person does, he’s guilty. Which is how our Law and Order(both the show and the concept)fans, in their belief that hordes of criminals are “getting off on technicalities” have demanded that legislation be written. That is, in order to prevent people from using plausible reasons why they are not guilty of something, we include those reasons as evidence of the same crime.
What were the actual jury instructions I wonder? Was there anything in the legislation to justify any instructions or prosecutorial argument about being in a position to, “without too much difficulty”, use the vehicle to endanger others? Just about any motorist will, in the normal course of operating a vehicle, be in a position where he could use his vehicle to endanger others, with even less difficulty than the drunk with keys in his pocket.