If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... That depends on the local laws and what the person was doing. I believe the rule here about having the keys refers to being in the car with the keys (even if you weren't actually operating the car at the time they spotted you). |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
ET wrote:
Drunk and in possession of car keys is not an offense.... driving drunk in a private parking lot is not either for that matter... You start prosecuting for alleged "intention" alone and you now live in a totalitarian state.... Don't be so sure. New Hampshire is one of the states farthest from totalitarianism, but its Supreme Court just ruled that a person asleep in a car parked (transmission in PARK) in a private parking lot with the engine running to stay warm was operating while intoxicated. Summary: http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap111403d.html Case Decision: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...000/glagay.htm As an aside, the message that this case appears to send to drunk drivers is that you're no better off if you pull over and stop, so you might as well keep going. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Lynn Melrose wrote in
: ET wrote: Drunk and in possession of car keys is not an offense.... driving drunk in a private parking lot is not either for that matter... You start prosecuting for alleged "intention" alone and you now live in a totalitarian state.... Don't be so sure. New Hampshire is one of the states farthest from totalitarianism, but its Supreme Court just ruled that a person asleep in a car parked (transmission in PARK) in a private parking lot with the engine running to stay warm was operating while intoxicated. Summary: http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap111403d.html Case Decision: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...000/glagay.htm As an aside, the message that this case appears to send to drunk drivers is that you're no better off if you pull over and stop, so you might as well keep going. Absolutely ridiculous...... Although after reading to opinion in the link of your post, there was a witness the the person actually driving within a reasonable time of being observed by the officer in his car etc... so it's not "quite" as ridiculous as it first seems..... -- ET "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. .. I believe the rule here about having the keys refers to being in the car with the keys Not in the part of the thread to which I was responding. "I would that it is the duty of the officer in this case to stop the person before he gets behind the wheel" was the quote in the post to which I replied. Pete |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
ET wrote: Lynn Melrose wrote in : ET wrote: Drunk and in possession of car keys is not an offense.... driving drunk in a private parking lot is not either for that matter... You start prosecuting for alleged "intention" alone and you now live in a totalitarian state.... Don't be so sure. New Hampshire is one of the states farthest from totalitarianism, but its Supreme Court just ruled that a person asleep in a car parked (transmission in PARK) in a private parking lot with the engine running to stay warm was operating while intoxicated. Summary: http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap111403d.html Case Decision: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...000/glagay.htm As an aside, the message that this case appears to send to drunk drivers is that you're no better off if you pull over and stop, so you might as well keep going. Absolutely ridiculous...... Although after reading to opinion in the link of your post, there was a witness the the person actually driving within a reasonable time of being observed by the officer in his car etc... so it's not "quite" as ridiculous as it first seems..... My mistake, I posted the wrong opinion link! The not quite as ridiculous decision was actually the wrong case. You can view the opinion to the case above at: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...3/winst154.htm "The record supports the following facts. The charge arose out of an incident on April 6, 2002, when, at approximately 3:13 a.m., Officer Shawn L. Hallock of the Claremont Police Department discovered the defendant in a car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. The defendant was sleeping upright in the driver’s seat, with the car engine running. At trial, the defendant testified that he decided to sleep in his car because he was "not . . . capable to drive anywhere," and that the car was running so he could stay warm. The defendant further testified that while he had no intention of driving the car, he did unlock the door, sit in the driver’s seat, push the clutch in, move the gear selector to neutral, start the engine and turn on the heater." .... "Here, the defendant was also found asleep in the driver’s seat of a car in a parking lot with the engine running. Moreover, the defendant testified at trial that he unlocked the door, sat in the driver’s seat, pushed the clutch in, moved the gear selector to neutral, started the engine and turned on the heater. Given these facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in actual physical control of the car before he fell asleep. See Willard, 139 N.H. at 571." _______ The breathalyzer test is notoriously inaccurate; the blood test is very accurate. (Gargling mouthwash and spitting it out may be enough to fail a breathalyzer test, even though you are not intoxicated. Conversely, it can underestimate the actual alcohol in the blood.) Somehow I doubt the police officer would have requested the blood test if the breathalyzer had recorded 0.08. BAC. In many states you have the right however to request a blood test, but unfortunately the breathalyzer has been accepted by the courts. . |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Lynn Melrose wrote in
: ... "Here, the defendant was also found asleep in the driver’s seat of a car in a parking lot with the engine running. Moreover, the defendant testified at trial that he unlocked the door, sat in the driver’s seat, pushed the clutch in, moved the gear selector to neutral, started the engine and turned on the heater. Given these facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in actual physical control of the car before he fell asleep. See Willard, 139 N.H. at 571." _______ OK, now THAT's outrageous! -- ET "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|