Bars

[ralliart16]

I take it that it's pretty standard for cops to "camp" outside of local bars and wait for possible drunk drivers? I usually don't go out to bars much, but just the other night, I was leaving one with some friends (it's right across from the college campus and so there are a strip of bars in this little plaza) and I noticed about 6 police vehicles patrolling the parking lot.

I take it a cop can pull you over immediately even if you do not exhibit any unsual driving, but he/she saw you "look drunk" walking to and getting inside the drivers seat of your vehicle? My friend also argued that you could "get into trouble" by just sitting inside your vehicle with the keys in the ignition listening to the radio if you're intoxicated, I do not believe this to be true?

Just something I was curious about.

 

[jshen]

I take it that it's pretty standard for cops to "camp" outside of local bars and wait for possible drunk drivers? ..., I was leaving one with some friends (it's right across from the college campus and so there are a strip of bars in this little plaza) and I noticed about 6 police vehicles patrolling the parking lot.

I take it a cop can pull you over immediately even if you do not exhibit any unsual driving, but he/she saw you "look drunk" walking to and getting inside the drivers seat of your vehicle? My friend also argued that you could "get into trouble" by just sitting inside your vehicle with the keys in the ignition listening to the radio if you're intoxicated, I do not believe this to be true?
.

Well for starters- we don't know why 6 police cars were around a college bar...but I can tell you from my experience..they need to be close WHEN trouble breaks out..but they might have been there looking for something entirely unrelated to the bar. We don't know- you've just assumed.

If one is stupid enough to walk to a car drunk and manifest his condition- one deserves what one gets..a trip to jail and no license.

If you sit in your car...and start the engine...that is enough here to arrest. If playing radio without engine? You could not be charged with DUI but maybe Drunkennes in Public...

 

[Top_Fuel]

...If playing radio without engine? You could not be charged with DUI...

Some states have gone completely overboard with their definition of DUI. I've heard a local DUI attorney advise people never to get into the front seat of a car while you have possession of the car keys...even if you're just going to sit there. I believe his advice was to climb into the back seat and make sure your keys were nowhere near the vehicle. Otherwise, you risk a DUI...at least in Ohio.

THIS article describes how crazy some courts and prosecutors are getting when it comes to DUI...

 

[ImShakn]

If playing radio without engine? You could not be charged with DUI but maybe Drunkennes in Public...

When I was stationed in AK, one of my soldiers was arrested for DUI...he had passed out at a bonfire and his buddies put him in the front seat of his pickup. Since he was in the front seat with the keys in his possession (they were in his pocket), he was found guilty of DUI. Unfortunately due to the zero tolerance policies the command had on DUI, in addition to the civil penalties he was also demoted from E4 to E1 and had to forfeit his pay for 90 days. He was lucky to not get confinement or even a BCD.

 

[jshen]

Some states have gone completely overboard with their definition of DUI. I've heard a local DUI attorney advise people never to get into the front seat of a car while you have possession of the car keys...even if you're just going to sit there.
...

That is pretty good advice. When you are behind the wheel, you are in "actual physical custody" of the vehicle. Some states may differ on what constitutes "operating"...Mine requires motor on/ or an attempt at starting..just about anything will do...but better advice is as you posted...however back seat still puts you in "drunk in public" here in GA...

The article posted is pretty accurate...

 

[WVFord]

I wish the police would "camp" outside of every bar. Get the damn drunks off the road. How nice this would be.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Well for starters- we don't know why 6 police cars were around a college bar...but I can tell you from my experience..they need to be close WHEN trouble breaks out..but they might have been there looking for something entirely unrelated to the bar. We don't know- you've just assumed.

If one is stupid enough to walk to a car drunk and manifest his condition- one deserves what one gets..a trip to jail and no license.

If you sit in your car...and start the engine...that is enough here to arrest. If playing radio without engine? You could not be charged with DUI but maybe Drunkennes in Public...

DUI in Florida, the keys only need to be in the ignition, car doesnt have to be on.

 

[RDJ]

DUI in Florida, the keys only need to be in the ignition, car doesnt have to be on.

If I remember correctly this is also true in MD and VA. It has been awhile tho.

 

[FordSVTFan]

If I remember correctly this is also true in MD and VA. It has been awhile tho.

A lot of states have gone to that standard, as it is "physical control" of the vehicle. If the keys are there and you are in the seat, the presumption is either you just stopped or you are going to be starting.

I think the standard should be more harsh. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to drive after consuming alcohol. It is a conscious decision made beforehand and while sober.

 

[stunts]

Okay, devils advocate here. Newer cars that have the push button start with the smart key. How would that be interpreted? You would not have to have the key on you, only anywhere in the vehicle and the vehicle could be started, from almost any spot in the car.

I totally agree that alcohol and a vehicle in any capacity should not be together, however, doesn’t a crime actually have to be committed before being punished or are we moving away from that in order to protect the innocent? I would say that the penalty for drunk driving is far to lenient. In CA they can crush your car for street racing. I don’t see many (if any) drunk’s cars being crushed for first infraction.

Please don’t take the above as any type of slight against any LEO. I truly love and appreciate what you guys do and know that could not do it day in day out. I am grateful for the service you provide. I also understand that you just enforce a given law and don’t write it, I am just questioning the state of society these days.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Okay, devils advocate here. Newer cars that have the push button start with the smart key. How would that be interpreted? You would not have to have the key on you, only anywhere in the vehicle and the vehicle could be started, from almost any spot in the car.

Good Question. My Vette has push button start. I would submit that if the key fob is within range and you are in the seat, you are in control.

I totally agree that alcohol and a vehicle in any capacity should not be together, however, doesn’t a crime actually have to be committed before being punished or are we moving away from that in order to protect the innocent? I would say that the penalty for drunk driving is far to lenient. In CA they can crush your car for street racing. I don’t see many (if any) drunk’s cars being crushed for first infraction.

The law as written holds that being intoxicated and in control of a motor vehicle is the violation, and therefore constitutes the criminal act.

Please don’t take the above as any type of slight against any LEO. I truly love and appreciate what you guys do and know that could not do it day in day out. I am grateful for the service you provide. I also understand that you just enforce a given law and don’t write it, I am just questioning the state of society these days.

Understood.:beer:

 

[ford_racer]

I was told Montana law is if the keys are in the car. Doesn't even have to be your car, if the keys are in it, it's grounds for arrest.

 

[darkhorse276]

I heard that the keys cannot be within reach. So, if you put them behind the passenger seat for example, it is obvious that you do not intend to drive the vehicle and it would be okay. Is there any truth to that?

I think the standard should be more harsh. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to drive after consuming alcohol. It is a conscious decision made beforehand and while sober.

I have to disagree on this one. It's not always a conscious decision made to drive drunk before you start drinking. Many people are not sober when they decide to drive after drinking. I certainly think though, that there should be harsher penalties for those who are caught.

 

[SHONOFF98]

Okay, devils advocate here. Newer cars that have the push button start with the smart key. How would that be interpreted? You would not have to have the key on you, only anywhere in the vehicle and the vehicle could be started, from almost any spot in the car.

I totally agree that alcohol and a vehicle in any capacity should not be together, however, doesn’t a crime actually have to be committed before being punished or are we moving away from that in order to protect the innocent? I would say that the penalty for drunk driving is far to lenient. In CA they can crush your car for street racing. I don’t see many (if any) drunk’s cars being crushed for first infraction.

Please don’t take the above as any type of slight against any LEO. I truly love and appreciate what you guys do and know that could not do it day in day out. I am grateful for the service you provide. I also understand that you just enforce a given law and don’t write it, I am just questioning the state of society these days.

The cars with the push button start (at least Nissan's) you have to have your foot on the brake to start it. So if you're in the back or passenger seat even if you have the key you can't start it.

 

[ImShakn]

I have no sympathy for anyone caught driving while intoxicated, however I have a hard time with a standard that conflicts with the purpose of DUI laws...keeping people who have been drinking off the road. IMO, if they are sleeping it off (where it is not apparent that they have been driving since drinking) then they are being responsible enough to do the right thing and should be left alone.

Out of curiosity, do implied consent laws apply when parked on private property?

 

[Top_Fuel]

We probably all agree that drinking and driving is a bad idea. What we may not agree on is how our Constitutional rights are slowly being eroded by the efforts of groups like MADD...

The DUI Exception to the Constitution

 

[F1reStart3r]

I have no sympathy for anyone caught driving while intoxicated, however I have a hard time with a standard that conflicts with the purpose of DUI laws...keeping people who have been drinking off the road. IMO, if they are sleeping it off (where it is not apparent that they have been driving since drinking) then they are being responsible enough to do the right thing and should be left alone.

this i agree with. if you make a concious effort to sleep it off or at least not drive then why should you get punished? do you really have other options? sure you could sleep on a park bench or the ground etc, but then aren't you still drunk in public? perhaps it would be the officers discression i don't know.

although to the OP, here in NoVa the police do wait outside of bars. Usually there are some uniformed officers standing around outside of major bars which i completely agree with. i assume it makes people feel safer and makes others think twice about getting into a fight or dwi. presence is a deterrent.

 

[FordSVTFan]

I have to disagree on this one. It's not always a conscious decision made to drive drunk before you start drinking. Many people are not sober when they decide to drive after drinking. I certainly think though, that there should be harsher penalties for those who are caught.

It is a conscious decision to go out and drink and to bring your car and then have access to drive it after drinking. Therefore, if you want to go out and drink arrange for a designated driver or dont drive yourself.

 

[97WHITEVENOM]

I have no sympathy for anyone caught driving while intoxicated, however I have a hard time with a standard that conflicts with the purpose of DUI laws...keeping people who have been drinking off the road. IMO, if they are sleeping it off (where it is not apparent that they have been driving since drinking) then they are being responsible enough to do the right thing and should be left alone.

Out of curiosity, do implied consent laws apply when parked on private property?

+65,000

 

[exdeath]

"are going to be"

"just about anything will do"

Those phrases should scare any so called American to death...

A crime has not yet been committed, and the presumption of such is a serious transgression in legislation. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I wasn't aware that this is Minority Report and we arrest people these days for what they MIGHT do. Someone who picks up a knife could be peeling a potato, or they could be getting ready to murder someone. Why is it always assumed the latter?

While I detest drunk drivers and don't even drink at all myself, 0 mph does not constitute driving. Do we arrest 6 year olds and their parents for sitting in the front seat of a vehicle with the keys in their hands for under age driving or driving without a license? My absurdity here is intentional.

And a parking lot is also private property. When someone vandalizes your vehicle in a parking lot and you cannot get officer assistance to at least file a police report so it's on record, they make it clear they cannot intervene due to private property. But sit in the same car on private property and listen to the radio or nap while waiting to sober up and the SWAT team and ATF are brought in like there is a thermonuclear weapon in the trunk?

The fact that laws which initially made perfect sense have incrementally extended themselves such that 0 mph now constitutes driving and private property is irrelevant, is just more evidence of the slippery slope principle alive and well.

We can't just go arresting people for some theoretical situation we are afraid might happen or because it's more convenient to stop them beforehand "just in case", not knowing whether or not a crime would have been committed in the first place. Thats how law abiding people get their lives destroyed being caught in the edge of a catch all net where the individual judgment of an officer decided that "just about anything will do" and the judge was a mother who lost a child to a real drunk driver and will not look twice at the circumstances if the words "alcohol" and "vehicle" appear on the charge. One can see how a pre-emptive crusade to protect the innocent from wrong doers with a "zero tolerance" attitude can adversely affect the very innocent that suchs actions are intended to protect.

Most of this ridiculous legislation is passed without scrutiny by small groups of people on personal crusades, and the average joe just minding their own business and going to work and going home every day and oblivious to politics is clueless that their liberty is being eroded. Especially in cases like this, when said average joe doesn't drink and drive, and suddenly is facing charges with zero leniency because he walked out of a bar for a few minutes and stuck the key in the ignition to activate the power windows because a storm was coming or because he was locking up his vehicle to stay overnight while a cab was being called. (the power windows in all my vehicles require a key in the ignition to function)

People need to stop being clueless and participate in politics and reverse these trends, until it's too late and political means become ineffective.