Decision on DUI frustrates officials

[Modbert]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

WILKES-BARRE – It seemed like a clear cut case of drunken driving when a city police officer came across a Hanover Township man asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running.

The suspect, Victor Verdekal, had a strong odor of alcohol and staggered out of the vehicle when awakened, nearly falling several times, according to an arrest affidavit. A blood-alcohol test later revealed he had a level of 0.197 percent, nearly 2 � times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

But when the case went to court in April 2009, Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorney’s Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered.

The reason?

The vehicle was parked at the time Verdekal, 27, of West St. Mary’s Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.

It’s a legal distinction that’s been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.

He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Toole’s decision. Barring a potential appeal to the state Supreme Court, the ruling means prosecutors will have to drop the charges against Verdekal for lack of evidence.

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

The law here, and in my former state, was that if the keys are in the ignition, even if the car is off, you can be charged with a DUI.

I've heard plenty of second hand stories about how someone left the bar, realized they shouldn't drive, and put the keys in the ignition and leaned the seat back to sleep in the bar's parking lot. Or, if the car was on, that they had turned it on for either heat or AC.

*shrug* I don't go to bars really (anymore).

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Keys in the ignition, you are in charge of motor vehicle.

If you want to sleep it off, do so in the back or passenger seat.

 

[HUGGY]

I agree with the court ruling. There are plenty of drunks out there driving cars endangering the public. This is police harassment. Getting intoxicated is not illegal. Whats next? A policeman sees you drunk in your front yard and there is a car in your driveway and the key is in the ignition so he arrests you? How about the police going into a bar and arresting everyone with car keys in their pocket? DRIVING DRUNK is against the law. Sitting in a car drunk is not. How do you know the guy didn't decide at the last minute he was impaired and is about to call a friend or a cab? It is called presumed innocense.

 

[Care4all]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

 

[maineman]

I agree with the court ruling. There are plenty of drunks out there driving cars endangering the public. This is police harassment. Getting intoxicated is not illegal. Whats next? A policeman sees you drunk in your front yard and there is a car in your driveway and the key is in the ignition so he arrests you? How about the police going into a bar and arresting everyone with car keys in their pocket? DRIVING DRUNK is against the law. Sitting in a car drunk is not. How do you know the guy didn't decide at the last minute he was impaired and is about to call a friend or a cab? It is called presumed innocense.

precisely

 

[ConHog]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

The law here, and in my former state, was that if the keys are in the ignition, even if the car is off, you can be charged with a DUI.

I've heard plenty of second hand stories about how someone left the bar, realized they shouldn't drive, and put the keys in the ignition and leaned the seat back to sleep in the bar's parking lot. Or, if the car was on, that they had turned it on for either heat or AC.

*shrug* I don't go to bars really (anymore).

That's the law in Arkansas as well, and that is the way I want it to stay.

 

[Barb]

I always thought that if the keys were in the ignition, the cops had a case, but that when the keys were not in the ignition, they did not.
should have read the thread first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

WILKES-BARRE – It seemed like a clear cut case of drunken driving when a city police officer came across a Hanover Township man asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running.

The suspect, Victor Verdekal, had a strong odor of alcohol and staggered out of the vehicle when awakened, nearly falling several times, according to an arrest affidavit. A blood-alcohol test later revealed he had a level of 0.197 percent, nearly 2 � times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

But when the case went to court in April 2009, Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorney’s Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered.

The reason?

The vehicle was parked at the time Verdekal, 27, of West St. Mary’s Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.

It’s a legal distinction that’s been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.

He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Toole’s decision. Barring a potential appeal to the state Supreme Court, the ruling means prosecutors will have to drop the charges against Verdekal for lack of evidence.

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

It makes sense to me. I had a friend who got nabbed for drunk driving because he was sleeping it off in the backseat of his car in the parking lot of the bar. They nailed him because the key was in the ignition and the car was running so he would not freeze to death. If the car is not being driven it is not Driving While Intoxicated.

 

[ConHog]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

WILKES-BARRE – It seemed like a clear cut case of drunken driving when a city police officer came across a Hanover Township man asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running.

The suspect, Victor Verdekal, had a strong odor of alcohol and staggered out of the vehicle when awakened, nearly falling several times, according to an arrest affidavit. A blood-alcohol test later revealed he had a level of 0.197 percent, nearly 2 � times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

But when the case went to court in April 2009, Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorney’s Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered.

The reason?

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

It makes sense to me. I had a friend who got nabbed for drunk driving because he was sleeping it off in the backseat of his car in the parking lot of the bar. They nailed him because the key was in the ignition and the car was running so he would not freeze to death. If the car is not being driven it is not Driving While Intoxicated.

Arkansas DUI law. I would guess most states are similar

5-65-103. Unlawful acts.

Statutes

(a) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this act for any person who is intoxicated to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this act for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle if at that time the alcohol concentration in the person’s breath or blood was eight-hundredths (0.08) or more based upon the definition of breath, blood, and urine concentration in 5-65-204.

As explained by the ADA, that means you don't have to be driving, you just have to be in control of the vehicle.

 

[George Costanza]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

 

[blu]

once again conhog is the only one on the wrong side of reason.

 

[Dante]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

WILKES-BARRE – It seemed like a clear cut case of drunken driving when a city police officer came across a Hanover Township man asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running.

The suspect, Victor Verdekal, had a strong odor of alcohol and staggered out of the vehicle when awakened, nearly falling several times, according to an arrest affidavit. A blood-alcohol test later revealed he had a level of 0.197 percent, nearly 2 � times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

But when the case went to court in April 2009, Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorney’s Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered.

The reason?

The vehicle was parked at the time Verdekal, 27, of West St. Mary’s Road, was discovered, and police could not prove that he had actually operated the car in an intoxicated state.

It’s a legal distinction that’s been utilized to overturn DUI convictions in a number of cases statewide, frustrating prosecutors and police.

He was right. A three-member panel of the court voted 2-1 this week to affirm Toole’s decision. Barring a potential appeal to the state Supreme Court, the ruling means prosecutors will have to drop the charges against Verdekal for lack of evidence.

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

Great because I know people have been arrested and convicted for being in a car with the key in the ignition, while supposedly under the influence.

Imagine being in a car in the cold weather. You have a few drinks. You heat the car up and shut the engine off. You heat the car up and shut the engine off after a while, so you don't freeze. You do this because you don't want to drive until later.

 

[Dante]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

Thoughts on the change USMB?

It makes sense to me. I had a friend who got nabbed for drunk driving because he was sleeping it off in the backseat of his car in the parking lot of the bar. They nailed him because the key was in the ignition and the car was running so he would not freeze to death. If the car is not being driven it is not Driving While Intoxicated.

Arkansas DUI law. I would guess most states are similar

5-65-103. Unlawful acts.

Statutes

(a) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this act for any person who is intoxicated to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this act for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle if at that time the alcohol concentration in the person’s breath or blood was eight-hundredths (0.08) or more based upon the definition of breath, blood, and urine concentration in 5-65-204.

As explained by the ADA, that means you don't have to be driving, you just have to be in control of the vehicle.

true that being in physical control of a motor vehicle is an interpretation of law that is used. It may even be that this is the only interpretation of the law. It's fuckin' mind boggling stupid.

a motor vehicle that is not moving? think of a car that has no wheels or is up on a lift. Start the engine. You are in actual physical control of the vehicle. dumb

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

 

[Dante]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

In some (maybe all where this was contested) cases juries were instructed to view simply being in the auto with the keys in the ignition as being in control of the vehicle.

you're barking up the wrong tree. being in a car, drunk, with the keys in the ignition, was viewed as drunk driving -- by law. if you were on a jury, the other jurors and the judge would've told you so. your not guilty vote would have to be based on something else -- until now.

until now! that is why I assume this thread was started. It's a new interpretation of the law from a judge.


---

correction: "Senior Luzerne County Judge Patrick Toole ruled the District Attorney’s Office could not present any of the evidence police had gathered."


the judge keeps the evidence out. the law still says what it did, and the interpretations may not have changed.

what has changed is just what judges are allowing in as admissible.

 

[ConHog]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Only cuz you're a loon when it comes to LEO and you always think the LEO are wrong.

 

[Luissa]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

“If an intoxicated person starts his vehicle that is not, in and of itself, enough for an officer to have probable cause to believe a driver is under the influence,” Webby said. “They (the courts) don’t want to put a chilling effect on people who know they can’t drive and are using a car to sleep.”

Thoughts on the change USMB?

The law here, and in my former state, was that if the keys are in the ignition, even if the car is off, you can be charged with a DUI.

I've heard plenty of second hand stories about how someone left the bar, realized they shouldn't drive, and put the keys in the ignition and leaned the seat back to sleep in the bar's parking lot. Or, if the car was on, that they had turned it on for either heat or AC.

*shrug* I don't go to bars really (anymore).

I know a few people who have slept in their care because they were too drunk. If they parked, and not in the roadway, it shouldn't be a DUI.

 

[George Costanza]

Decision on DUI frustrates officials | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA




Thoughts on the change USMB?

The law here, and in my former state, was that if the keys are in the ignition, even if the car is off, you can be charged with a DUI.

I've heard plenty of second hand stories about how someone left the bar, realized they shouldn't drive, and put the keys in the ignition and leaned the seat back to sleep in the bar's parking lot. Or, if the car was on, that they had turned it on for either heat or AC.

*shrug* I don't go to bars really (anymore).

I know a few people who have slept in their care because they were too drunk. If they parked, and not in the roadway, it shouldn't be a DUI.

If they drove their car any distance to get there while they were drunk, it should be a DUI.

Does the fact that they got lucky while driving to the spot where they decided to stop and sleep it off, and didn't kill anyone while they were driving there, somehow make it OK? The purpose of the DUI laws is to protect people on the road from drunk drivers. If some drunk kills or injures you or your loved one, it is small consolation that they did so when they were planning on pulling over and sleeping it off, "just a little bit further down the road."

 

[George Costanza]

I agree with the ruling as well...if you are not driving, then you should not be charged with it....I thought it was a drunken DRIVING law anyway...

the thing is though, if this person did drive the car before stopping and falling asleep and side swiped another car on the way to his sleeping spot, then all bets are off....and them being drunk should go against them....

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.