digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Man Gets DUI For Sleeping in Parked Car

rottingnation.com — "Apparently the ‘D’ in ‘DUI’ does not have meaning anymore. David Montalvo, 36, was arrested when he, in a responsible fashion, decided to sleep off his intoxication in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli. He was charged with DUI." Come on people, at least try and be fair to the non-hollywood public-at-large simpletons.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -54/+201Who didn't already know that was the law in most places? Dug down for clueless kids.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -3/+47Back just six years ago we had cops come into our high school and talk about how even turning a key in a car door when drunk would be enough for a DUI in Ohio.
      • sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26I know a guy here in northern california with 3 dui's, none of which were given to him while driving. One of them was for just standing near his car while drunk.
        • sowdog, on 10/10/2007, -6/+54Yeah? Well i knew a guy who got 2 DUIS for talking in about cars in bar!
          • brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If 5 drunk people slept in a car, would all of them be guilty of DUI?
            Should the person possessing the keys in the back seat get the same penalty as the guy sitting in the driver's seat?

            If this situation is open to interpretation, then I think it's time for DUI law reform. What good is a law if nobody understands it?
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I knew two guys in the Navy that got charged with drunk driving while they were on bicycles. Not by the law, but by our commanding officer (they went to Captain's Mast). The Navy's rules specifically state operating a motorized vehicle as does the law, but nobody actually cares about following the rules or regulations, they're just out to screw as many people as possible. Our CO was a total *****.
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In Ontario, if you are riding your bike, and are pulled over by the police. Do not give them your drivers license. Present other ID, and they'll not charge you with a vehicle-driving offence. Sounds strange I know, but true none-the-less.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Bicycles have to obey ALL laws that cars do in most states, and that includes DUI. You can indeed be charged with a DUI on a bike.
          • Niten, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35It's a bit ridiculous, however. The entire reason for the heavy penalties associated with a DUI is the huge potential for harm to others when driving a heavy chunk of steel while intoxicated. The risks associated with cycling while under the influence, on the other hand, are minuscule in comparison.

            But I guess it's easier for law enforcement and the courts to follow a mindless, "zero-tolerance" approach than to actually think about what sort of punishment genuinely fits the crime... sigh.
          • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I got a careless driving ticket while bike riding. Oh, and I deserved it.
          • fowleryo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12to play devil's advocate, riding a bike into traffic intoxicated could be potential disaster depending on how many cars are out and who's paying attention.
          • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7what about the drunk people on bikes who do stupid things and get hit by cars? The driver of that car is harmed because of damage to the car and any legal action taken against that driver. Thats why its not legal to ride a bike while drunk.

            But the way it is in this state, to be considered a vehicle the thing must have breaks. So a skateboard, or a bike without breaks, would be fine
          • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"But the way it is in this state, to be considered a vehicle the thing must have breaks. So a skateboard, or a bike without breaks, would be fine" lol, what? so it's illegal to drive a bike with brakes while intoxicated, but it's legal to drive a bike without brakes while intoxicated? something seems horribly, horribly wrong there.
          • aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This has nothing to do with public safety, and has everything to do with revenue. Do you realize how much most states rake in on DUI and related offenses, between fines, court costs, etc. A friend of mine just got a DUI in Wisconsin 3 months ago and it's costing him about $3200 (his first offense). Multiply that by the average of 37,000 arrests per year and you're looking at $118 Million, and that's just one state. You can raise taxes, but it's far easier to find some reason to call someone a criminal and take their money. The same is true for the war on drugs.
          • dk911, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0What do you mean "has nothing to do with public safety"?? Do you know the statistics of people killed or maimed DAILY by drunk drivers? Don't spew your ***** about revenue, you uninformed dumbass! Should it cost $5.00 for being caught drinking and driving?? That would be a deterrant -- NOT!
          • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2how many people do you guys know who could be intoxicated enough to impair their ability to reason, but still had the equilibrium enough to operate a bike?
          • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even though the don't, effen bikers.
        • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Most state's laws don't say "motorized" vehicle, they say "vehicle".
          • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Stop making things up.
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3vawksel: he's right. Further, on a bicycle, YOU are the motor.
          • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've seen an episode of COPS where someone got arrested for DUI for riding a horse drunk.
          • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Mysterious digg doublepost despite one click on submit. Digg this son of a bitch down.
          • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, but then you have to look up the state's definition of vehicle. For example, in CA a bicycle does not fit the definition of vehicle. Which is why there is a separate law making it illegal to drive a bike while intoxicated -- maximum penalty $250 fine.
      • HypocriteDigg, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5That's so ***** lame. What about looking at a car when you're drunk? I guess that's reason enough for execution to neocons.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4This has nothing to with conservatives. Nanny state liberals are the ones who love zero tolerance.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -30/+9Pull over, park the car, turn it off, TAKE THE KEYS OUT, pick up the bottle off the floor and finish it off. When you fail the field sobriety and then the breathalyser, there will be no proof the your blood/alcohol level isn't too high from the alcohol you drank while pulled over and had the keys out of the ignition. You'll only get busted for public intoxication, which is illegal almost everywhere.

      That said, when you kill someone, ***** you and go to jail forever.

      Props to Firefox for having breathalyser in the dictionary.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16How about just not drive drunk?
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Good luck with that one, hope to see you on Cops.
      • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1...and probably still get convicted for a DUI, then also get convicted for an open container, and I'm sure the cop will be able to find a few more charges to stick on.
      • ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18worst...legal...advice....evar.
      • Homoomo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Idiotic people like you are the reason these kind of laws are made
    • crazymonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I've known about this law for awhile. The smart thing to do is to take the keys out of the ignition and sleep in the backseat.
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3what do you do if it's freezing outside? the heater won't run without the keys.
      • carltonsmith, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10If I was on the jury I'd acquit
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You cannot be in possession of the car via your keys. You have to hide the keys outside (put them behind a tire) and tell the cops you're friend left you there to sleep it off.
      • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Where i live, as long as the keys aren't in the ignition you are fine. As to the running car keeping you warm, if you leave the car running while not moving you run the risk of pulling those exhaust fumes into the cab.. a running and still car isn't a good idea.
    • EthylAdded, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Okay, key's in ignition, car running (maybe to keep the heater running), asleep in the backseat. DUI or no?
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Depends on the state.

        But for other reasons its stupid to sleep in car with the engine on.
      • loup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24I was on a jury for a drunk driving case a little while back. In Minnesota, you must simply be in control of the vehicle for it to count as DUI. You are considered to be in control of the vehicle if you are the only occupant in the car with easy access to the keys. I believe it is legal to unlock the car, but the instant you get in it with the keys (and are intoxicated,) that's considered a DUI, doesn't matter which seat you're in.

        After the trial, the judge was talking to us and told us if we're drunk and need to sleep in the car for whatever reason, unlock the car, put the keys somewhere that you can retrieve them, but is outside the car (preferably where no one else is going to find them and steal them) and then get into the back seat to sleep.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31I hope you rendered your verdict according to your conscience, and not simply to match up with whatever the judge told you. Juries don't exist to do whatever the judge says.

          http://www.fija.org
          • loup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The girl had admitted to driving the truck to the police, her boyfriend testified that she had been driving and he was a passenger, it was her truck, she had run into a stop sign and eventually got the truck hung up on a large rock in someone's front yard, when the police arrived, she was outside the truck, but sitting on the running board on the driver's side. She failed multiple BAC tests.
            We found her guilty for driving under the influence and another related charge. My guess is that the reason she decided to try fighting it is because one of the consequences was having her license suspended.
          • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3System wouldn't let me reply to your comment, but it sounds like she was certainly fighting a losing battle by almost anyone's standards.
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A person who isn't driving is not driving under the influence. Whether the law defines it as such or not.
        • cowman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1if the law defines it as such then it is
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The law does not negate reality. Just because the law says it does not automatically make it true.
    • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8@Error601 - Normally, I would agree with you. However, there is one problem with you argument here. This case SHOULD get thrown out on one fact. His car COULD have got to its location by him driving it there legally while sober. That fact alone should get him off the hook. I DO know the law for a few states. I am speaking of Indiana law. If the vehicle could have been put there without the person being drunk, they can't charge you with DUI. Case in point, A guy got a DUI for sleeping in his parked car on a county road next to a corn field. The cops gave him a breathalyser and he failed. They checked his car for alcohol and found none. Therefor he had to have been drunk before he drove the car. Hence, he got a DUI.
      • slantyeyed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is Jersey, not Indiana.
      • bobmckenzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I got a DUI for the same thing. Asleep in the PASSENGER seat in my car. Keys in my pocket.
        Keys in car = DUI in Tennessee
        I have heard the same advice that the Minnesota Judge gave. Ask a decent DUI attorney an they will recommend that you get a cab. Cops don't always follow the rules perfectly and it's really not worth:
        1. Time in jail when you get arrested (albeit unjustly)
        2. $$ for an attorney
        3. Days missed from work to go to court. Not to mention the embarrassment of telling the boss why you are repeatedly going to court. (I just kept taking sick days).
        4. The massive hike in your insurance rate (if you loose in court).
        5. 48 hours in jail minimum (TN)

        Overall I think the DUI cost me around $9,000 this year (not including missed work days).
        $3k for an attorney ($1k general sessions court & $2k criminal court to fight it.)
        $3,500 increase in my auto insurance (not to mention a DUI on my record for LIFE, it NEVER goes away in TN).
        $2,500 fines and court costs

        If someone put a gun to my head and made me sleep in a car drunk I would hide the keys outside the vehicle and deal with the cold.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Exactly error601, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
      • surfacewound, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Yeah but that's *****. Yes, ignorance of the law is no exuse, within REASON.

        Everyone knows that "DUI" or "DWI" means "driving under the influence" and "driving while intoxicated." Key word DRIVING. It's FAR from reasonable to expect normal people to understand that you can be charged with a crime or wrong doing for something while driving when, in fact, you're not actually driving.
      • shredluc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually that quote ("ignorance of the law is no excuse") is only applicable to common law, not statutory law. The quote has been bastardized by the legal system. It is physically impossible to know all statutory law, and being ignorant of statutory law is a perfectly valid excuse.
      • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'd go even further to say that the law itself is unreasonable. To say that a person cannot be in a car with the engine running while intoxicated is unjust. It assumes intent to commit a crime(this itself should make your *****-ometer go off) before any crime is even committed(unless he was parked somewhere he shouldn't, this is just wrong). Thats two bs moves in one unjust law.

        Simply put, unless there is a way to prove/know he intended to drive, there is no reason to punish him.
    • disabled4diggin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+67The moral of the story is: Just drive drunk.
      • Homoomo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1.....No its not. just be smart enough before you drink to have a place to stay. if he would have thought that through he would have been fine
    • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I always thought you were supposed to unlock your car and open your door, pop your trunk, lock your keys inside and THEN get in the car and go to sleep. If your keys are locked in the trunk you do not have direct access to get them and thus are not in control of the car.

      It's kind of like the whole concealed weapon in the car and the "three steps" thing where you have to have three things you must do before gaining access to the weapon.
      • n3demonic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I'm supposed to do that while I'm drunk? Holy cow...
      • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6If you have one of those emergency releases in the trunk, you can sleep in it. I had a friend do that once because he was afraid of getting (another) DUI. You may just look a little silly climbing out of a trunk the next morning in the middle of a parking lot.
        • h4mx0r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2On hot days, you'll wake up from heat exhaustion!
        • livesunexamined, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you should probably make sure you have an emergency release before hopping in there. Otherwise, you'll just have a drunk pounding his way at the trunk door.
      • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1dupe
      • jsd8cc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not in control of the car? That's a C&I, buddy.
      • Skip742, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You make a good point, but I think these are the kinds of things that people think about when they're consciously thinking about how to get around the law. Most normal people just know that they're not supposed to drive drunk, and so they figure if they're not driving drunk they're safe. I still feel like that's a pretty rational solution. There's something disturbing about a law that can put you in jail for having the appearance of possibly having had the opportunity to maybe have committed a crime. Isn't it the actual commission of crime we're supposed to be interested in? What do laws like this say about our society?
    • chizzlechest420, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2NO $hit!!!! key's need to OUTSIDE the car...just put them under the rear tire.....burried as not even a good DUI story
    • yohnstoppable, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I was woken up by cops after sleeping it off outside a bar once. The first thing they asked was "where are the keys?" When I picked them up from the passenger seat, they were pretty cool about it. Gave me a field sobriety test to see if i was ok to drive home, thanked me for not driving drunk, and sent me on my way
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Exactly. Because if you'd have failed that sobriety test, you'd have gone to jail.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6depends on whether or not the cops wanted to be assholes. some cops occasionally do nice things you know...
        • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Erm, he didn't say he failed the sobriety test.
    • gradeahonky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34What a great law. If you can get arrested for simply sleeping in your car drunk, you might as well just drive home drunk then eh?
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I agree. At least then you could puke in your own toilet and pass out on your own floor. Since apparently driving and sleeping in the car are treated identically, I'd say go for it.
      • Braxo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Or how about get a taxi??
      • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1What if you wake up 2 hours later and you decide youre okay to drive? Youre still drunk. It's a good law.
        • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Always a good idea to arrest and fine people for things that they might do in the future.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2yeah, what *IF* you took a taxi home, and in two hours, took a taxi to get your car because you thought you were sober enough? The what-if part shouldn't be a DUI, it's the what you actually do (or don't do).
      • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Um no. The potential for a bad situation in a good situation (sleeping it off) should not be illegal. It makes more sense to simply arrest the drunk driver once he rolls away. Otherwise you have to start outlawing bars because of the potential for a bad situation.
    • patforget, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yup. Happened to my roommate a couple of years ago He didn't get his license back. Because It cost less to get caught drunk with no license than with a license.
    • Stupidumb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2So you dugg the story down because the person in the story made a mistake? Either you're joking or I am just confused about how this rating system works. Dugg for beautiful font on digg's comments.
    • jsd8cc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6@Error601
      You're missing the point, which is the asininity of the law.
    • Timmyftw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The state i live in here in Australia its considered drunk driving if you are in your car with the keys. They dont need to be in the ignition.
    • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's a good thing that this guy was forced to pay $4000. It's a good thing that our taxes pay cops to enforce this law. It helps us somehow.
      • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The fines pay the cops' salary, that's why they have quotas to make. Also, that's why the fines are so high, so that they can do less work to make the same amount of cash. Considering nobody likes to pay taxes, they need to get the money from somewhere. This is why smokes cost 10 bucks a pack here in Canada, so we can enjoy free health care.
    • rjam710, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I hate how laws these days overrule common sense. I just don't get how someone could sue McDonald's for millions of dollars because she didn't know that coffee is hot. How can someone do the responsible thing, but get punished for it anyway? Justice my ass. The US "Judicial' system is a complete joke.
      • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1McDonald's coffee isn't hot, it's thermonuclear...
      • merowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Laws these days? This law has been around for a while.. I'd say at least 30 years in most states, but probably much longer than that..
      • Cerberus047, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What i hate is that people use that case when talking about dumb lawsuits... did you know she got 3rd degree burns allover her legs, and she didnt want milions of dollars, she just wanted her medical bills paid, so do some research before talking out your ass! (other people complained about burning themselves and mcdonalds even admitted that the coffee was way hotter than normal)
    • humperdeath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1At 5 am he was still too drunk to drive (at least not willing to take the field test, then tested at the police stn.) Anyway, it that is true, he was REALLY blitzed at 2 am (or whenever he really DID drive to the Market Place Deli parking lot) So therefore, he deserved the DUI.
    • inked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If anything it should drunk in public..there is no law stating if you are asleep in a car drunk you are driving under the influence..We cant and shouldn't be able to convict anyone on what we think they may have done!
      • humperdeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no 'think he may have done it' He DID it, there is no doubt. The cop doesn't actually have to see you committing an offense, if there is enough proof he did it, he can be CHARGED with the offense. I never said the cops will convict the person.
  • fadeout, on 10/10/2007, -7/+113Any proper drunk knows to at least keep the engine off if you're sleeping off a night out... ;)

    And keep to the back seat or the back of your truck, too.
    • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27Actually, You can get a DUI for sleeping in the back too!
    • noots, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8i wonder what would happen if you were asleep in the back with the heating on, and just plain refused to wake for a knock on the window?
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14They would smash the window, thats what. They have no way of knowing if you are in need of medical help.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Since they want to help you so desperately that they'll smash your window, maybe it would be a good idea to write a little note telling them you're sleeping, and they should go away.
        • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Hell, you could be harboring terrorists or something in there!
      • SleepJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You'd probably get tazed.
      • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I break into hot women's houses all the time, I usually get caught and so, I just say "I saw her in her bed through the window, but I didn't know if she was sleeping or needed medical attention! So I broke in to check. The police usually respond with, "Yeah I would of done the same thing, okay, get out of here."
        • svenr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"would of done"? What is the would of the done?
          • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey, the cop said it not me, I can't help if he has poor grammar, he specifically said "of".

        • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1A few things before I call you a tool:

          A car is considered a public place.
          Police are allowed to do certain things in public places based on their assessment of the situation.
          Finally breaking into someones care HAS NOTHING to do with breaking into someones house.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2shark615, quit being a smartass calling someone a tool for something you don't actually grasp yourself. For one, a car parked on a private lot (lets say of a bar, or in a private driveway of a residence), so long as you can't see in the car (e.g. the person laying down sleeping in the back seat) from the street, is not considered a public place.
      • Rekutyn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1*godwins law*
        • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no one mentioned Nazis or Hitler. I don't get it. Or are you just predicting something? Or perhaps inciting a comment such as this?
    • da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7the car doesn't even have to be on, I've known guys who have gotten DUI's for sleeping in there cars with there keys in there jacket.
      • keruha, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16their
        • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4What was the point of that? Is this High School English class?
        • colinmhayes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1apparently not if da_bradler doesn't understand the difference between their and there.
      • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, put the keys OUTSIDE the car in the bushes then even if its still illegal to sleep in a car while drunk, the police officer would probably be a lot more forgiving seeing how you're making it clear you won't be driving.

        Then again, it's probably not illegal to sleep in a car if you don't have any keys to that vehicle on you, so this should be safe no matter what.
        • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Trunk, cause if you are drunk enough to need to sleep it off then you aren't going to remember which bush you threw the keys in by the time you sober up. Glove box with a lock on it works too... Or you could get one of those lock boxes, cause a cop needs a warrant to open anything with a lock on it
        • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Locking your set of keys inside a glove box you need your keys to open is not a good idea..
    • jerrygofixit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think if you do that you're supposed to put the keys out of reach, like in the trunk.
    • darthtofu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4actually if you read the article, it was 25 degrees outside.
    • rjam710, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It was 7 degrees below freezing, I doubt he would've lasted too long with the engine off. He might as well just have slept outside, or better yet, drive home drunk.
    • labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Keep a nice sleeping bag in the back of your truck if you suspect you might need it.
      The reason he got in trouble was because he had his car on. Otherwise the cop likely would have just passed him by.
  • fernB, on 10/10/2007, -27/+6A dunk on a bench is ok, but a dunk in a parked car is bad?
    • trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19What does the cop know? You're drunk in the 'drivers seat'. He doesn't know what your intentions are, nor can he prove any story you give him. As far as he's concerned, you could just be sitting there until your favorite country song is over.
      • cresquin, on 10/10/2007, -8/+62So he's charging you with a crime you may or may not commit. Welcome to pre-crime.
        • threemagic, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3When it comes to driving under the influence, yes...why wait until someone is dead?
          • MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Umm yea. Cop waits till you physically move the car, even one inch. Then he can pull you over and arrest you. You can't arrest me for robbing a store because I walked in with a gun in my pocket. Sure you can arrest me for the gun. And if you can possibly prove my intent to rob the store (I had told people I planned to rob it, or I walked in with a gun and a mask on my face) then you can book be for attempted robbery.
          • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1@ MindStalker

            "And if you can possibly prove my intent to rob the store (I had told people I planned to rob it, or I walked in with a gun and a mask on my face) then you can book be for attempted robbery."

            Getting in a car with the keys while intoxicated proves intent on driving while intoxicated. That's why that's all they need fr a DUI.
          • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Getting in a car with the keys while intoxicated proves intent on driving while intoxicated." which is utter *****. getting into a car with keys in no way should be considered proof of intent to drive.
          • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4what if there was more alcohol in the car, and a cop happened to see you enter the car, but all you were doing was getting that second bottle of vodka cause the girl in the house isn't pretty yet.... is that intent?
          • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why wait until they start drinking? Hell, why not just imprison all newborn babies for life? You know eventually they're going to break the law anyway.

            "We now have so many laws that everyone is breaking the law every second." - Henry Kissinger.

            We should arrest everyone who breaks the law, and continue to have no standards for what the law actually is.
        • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I agree. The government should implant devices in our heads that read negative emotions then charge us with crimes should we think them. Just in case, right? Who knows what I might do. It'll save lives!
        • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Arg damn double posts! Digg either double posts or deletes my posts. Is it just me or did the comment system get much worse with the new changes?
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I have yet to double post to Digg. I suggest that maybe you're just a little too eager to pound on that 'submit' button.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No, libtard fear-mongering jackass, he charged him with a crime he did commit. You are not allowed to be in control of a vehicle while drunk, and being in the drivers seat with the keys is considered in control.
          Learn the law, its not a hard one to follow. It also exists for a reason, and that is many drunks pass out in their cars while trying to drive them.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@mike17032 - it's an absurd law that shouldn't exist to that extent. if a drunk passes out WHILE driving their car, it's completely different than someone who is sleeping in a parked car. it's rather easy to differentiate between the two.
      • feoren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Many drunk drivers are arrested after passing out and rolling into a ditch. This way, they can actually be arrested, instead of saying they were sleeping in that ditch the whole time.
      • Worldchrisis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except if you're asleep you probably aren't waiting for that song to end.
      • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh?
    • Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Are you dunk?
    • gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Why not just take the guys keys and call him a cab. Sounds like they want to punish attempted responsible behavior as well as willful drunken driving to make more arrest points to me.
    • TjLAXattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In related news, the number of bench-linked involuntary manslaughter charges has reached an all-time high.
  • xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -23/+7Way to over react people.
    • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Considering how many people pass out while on the toilet, the officer has no way of knowing if the guy passed out in the driver's seat as he put the key in the ignition to drive away. DUI includes "operating" a motor vehicle, which the guy did. Drunks aren't known for their stellar judgment, so the guy should have been charged for breaking the law.
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the officer has no way of knowing the guy had committed a crime, he should be treated as innocent.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3not really. the guy could have just driven home drunk. instead he decided to sleep it off in the back seat. the car was on because it was freezing outside, you can't run the heater otherwise. he was trying to do the right thing.
  • anokun7, on 10/10/2007, -10/+57This is just so much like that "Everybody loves Raymond" stuff where Debra gets DUI-ed for exactly the same thing
    • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28That episode was a pretty good summary of her role on that series: "I don't have a drinking problem, I have a mother-in-law problem"
      • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Mother-in-law jokes never get stale. Why, I laughed to hard I fell off my penny farthing.
    • Barbega, on 10/10/2007, -28/+8Dugg down for watching everybody loves raymond
      • Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Dugg down for being critical towards others interests.
        • lazlonger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6dugg down for such a low level comment no one will ever see it
        • degree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4dugg down for such a low level comment no one will ever see it
    • VermiciousKnid, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3That's so weird cause I just saw that episode like an hour ago
    • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That policeman must have caught that episode too and decided to be dutiful
    • timbo8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0that episode was the first thing that came to my mind.
    • timbo8, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0that episode was the first thing that came to my mind.
  • 89vision, on 10/10/2007, -10/+35This happened to a buddy of mine. It was in the middle of the winter and snowing outside so he kept his car started and the ***** cop gave him a dui because his keys were in the ignition.
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -31/+5Good. One less intoxicated ***** roaming the streets. If your gonna drink yourself into oblivion, be prepared to face the consequnces.
      • 89vision, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9What do you mean? My buddy was the intoxicated one not the cop!
      • djpants428, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12if he was parked, doesn't that pretty much mean he wasn't roaming?
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It's pretty clear that, in the middle of winter, with it snowing outside, the only reason he started the car and sat in it was because of the temperature. I mean, I'm all for stopping drunk drivers, but when they're not ACTUALLY driving drunk and have no intention to, you're just really screwing over otherwise law-abiding citizens.

        The cost of a DUI is enormous, and I don't just mean monetarily.
      • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, if you're going to be sleeping in your car while drunk because you don't want to be un-safe and drive while intoxicated, then prepare to face the consequences.

        Next time, just sleep on the side-walk instead, since your car is obviously not your private property anymore.
      • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So are there any actions that cops could take that you fascists wouldn't support?

        Cops use taser on man for jaywalking. Man dies.

        GOOD! That's one less pedestrian I have to stop for!
        Lesson: If you don't want to get tasered, don't break the law.
        Stupid libtards bitch and moan about this, but who do they call when they get mugged?
      • Worldchrisis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Drinking isn't illegal.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8How would the cop know he wasn't planning on driving? I mean, if i walk up to a car and there is a drunk guy inside and the car is running...
      • scrubadub, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Then he's not driving, unless you want to break out thought crimes leave him alone. Or you can do some police work and watch the car from a distance and once he pulls out charge him.
        • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Again... by placing the keys in the ignition and being in the car he has shown intent to drive and that is more than enough to prove DUI. Dont like the law. Dont drink when you have to drive home. Or leave your car there and catch a cab. Just stop whining.
          • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Owning a gun doesn't prove intent to shoot it, let alone shoot at someone.

            It's unconstitutional. You shouldn't be arrested for crimes you never committed. It's just plain wrong regardless of the "law".
          • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Totally agreed. There are tons of things I *could* be planning on doing in that car (yes, including driving). Until I actually *do* them, stfu and leave me alone.

            I agree, the cops should sit and watch from a distance. As soon as I take the car out of 'park' or release the parking brake, charge in with the cuffs. Until then, for all you know, I could be planning on stripping down and getting it on with my blow-up doll.
          • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5placing keys into the ignition does not imply intent to drive. there are other reasons to put keys into the ignition.
          • SpectralSounds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You guys are missing the point. Its not about the crime, its about the money. They can get away with ticketing you and getting your MONEY. So, thats what they are going to do.
          • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4By placing the keys in the ignition and being in the car he has shown intent to avoid *freezing to death.*
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19"How would the cop know he wasn't planning on driving?"

        How do the police know that you aren't planning to break into someone's house tonight? Do you have a screwdriver at home?
      • Eldavidos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Innocent until PROVEN guilty?

        Do you still have that in America?
      • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4How do the police know if you aren't going to shoot someone tonight... You have a registered gun on hand, better take the man out before he uses it.

        If you're in the USA, read the constitution sometime.
      • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm saying thats WHY it is illegal.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So the guy is then no better off to just try and drive home drunk, killiing people, then to try and sleep it off with some heat. What a great law, the punishment is the same no matter if you put people at risk or not. What can we expect from those who make laws that like getting blow jobs in public restoorms. Okay that was a little too far, sorry.
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He hired a lawyer didn't he? No jury would convict him for that.
    • CelebVoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I got this one myself. I was throwing my id into my car so that when I was walking around drunk I could deny who I was and RUN! Unfortunatley they caught me after I went back to the car to get rid of my id, and I had an open beer in the car. They ended up giving me a "minor in possession" charge because I was only 20. Lucky me
  • ScotchInBox, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Don't even have to read the story - been there - done that - whatEVER!!!!
  • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+59Uh, hate to tell you but in Cali if the keys are in the ignition and you're drunk its considered a DUI. Lame I know, but been that way for years.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13That's no reason not to try and get rid of a crap law like that though.

      But I imagine all those groups like MADD would throw a ***** fit and make it basically impossible to change.
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Yes, we should make DUI arrests even harder. Thats a good goal to have.
        • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13The goal of DUI laws is not to simply have another reason to arrest people, the purpose is to prevent drunk driving as much as possible. If part of the law isn't helping reach that goal, there is no reason to keep it.
        • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Actually ricree it does promote the purpose. If you aren't even allowed to enter a vehicle while intoxicated unless there is someone who is sober to drive, then I would say that it does prevent drunk driving. As someone above stated, if you're drunk stay the F*** out of your car. It's really pretty simple.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sure, but once again, you're missing the point. Say you leave a bar, and now it's cold out, and the bar is closed. Your only choice is to stand outside and freeze, because some ***** thinks you shouldn't be allowed to sit in your car with the heat on because you've been drinking. That's just dumb. That means, you either stand there and freeze, or you get in the car and drive home, because if you sit there in your car, sobering up while keeping warm, a cop is likely to come by and charge you with drunk driving (despite the fact that you weren't driving at all).

            You're less likely to get a DUI if you can drive reasonably straight than if you sit in your car and wait to sober up. The law is encouraging drunk driving.
          • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Yeah because obviously those are the only two choices. Taking a cab home isn't even an option. Neither is learning that if you have to drive home you shouldn't be drinking that much. Or calling a friend to come pick you up. Or having a DD. Wow those are all such ridiculous ideas. No one could ever think of those.
          • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5@chicagodj - you certainly strayed from your argument. preventing someone who's drunk from sleeping in their vehicle does not logically prevent drunk driving, it can actually promote it. if you take a person who only has the two options, there's a good chance they would be more inclined to drive home as there would be less of a chance of encountering a cop depending on the location of their parked car. i know i've slept in my car plenty of times while drunk, for the simple purpose of not driving drunk, but if i were to get a DUI for doing the safe thing, then i'd be inclined to just drive home the next time that situation arose. yes, there are certainly other options, but they're not always available.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sure, those might be options sometimes, but the one option that is always available, cheaper than taking a cab, and allows you to not have to hassle your friends is to just sleep in the car. If the bar doesn't mind, and you don't mind, you should have every right to. The fact that it would keep the person from driving home is yet another reason why the law is stupid.
          • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"If you aren't even allowed to enter a vehicle while intoxicated unless there is someone who is sober to drive, then I would say that it does prevent drunk driving."

            Similarly if you aren't even allowed to drink, it prevents drunk driving. If you aren't even allowed to drive a car at all, it would prevent all reckless driving. If you aren't even allowed to leave your home, it would prevent all tresspassing. Let's just prevent the actual act we're trying to prevent and not other things that *might* lead to them.
      • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Here is a novel idea, if you are drunk STAY THE ***** OUT OF YOUR CAR!
        • frostieDude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Yeah, if it is cold, freeze to death on the sidewalk. Also, you have no right to use your own property.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7NinjaBoy, you're completely missing the point. The point is that people are getting charged with driving drunk when they're not even driving.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6even worse, people are getting a pretty nasty charge for doing the safe thing and not endangering other people's lives.
        • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1To the people above, are you all retarded? What if you wake up 2 hours later and decide you're okay to drive? You're still drunk and you may kill somebody. If you're too much of a retard to get a designated driver then you deserve to be jailed. It's not like drinking is mandatory anyways.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What if you wake up 2 hours later and decide you aren't? Or, what if you wake up 2 hours later and you aren't drunk anymore?

          I suppose you would still support jail time, seeing as how overcrowded our jails already are.
      • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yah MADD would say we're giving drunks a free pass and they could kill people. It went from common sense to hysteria a long time ago.
    • Stupidumb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Do you really hate to tell people?
    • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Are you all retarded? It's not a lame law. What if you wake up 2 hours later and decide you're okay to drive? You're still drunk and you may kill somebody. If you're too much of a retard to get a designated driver then you deserve to be jailed. It's not like drinking is mandatory anyways.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0read the 30 comments above, they really make you look retarded.
    • PStuart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can even get DUI'ed for being in the driver's seat with keys in your hands.
    • orxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What if it's one of those keyless ignition systems?
  • Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+182Chief Wiggum on phone: Mrs. Simpson, I have some bad news... Your husband was found DOA.
    Marge: Oh my god! He's dead?!
    Chief Wiggum: No! I mean DUI . . . I always get those two mixed up. (hangs up phone)
    Woman walks in: My name is Mrs. Phillips. You said my husband was DUI?
  • sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -12/+108Moral of the story... If you are too drunk to realize you shouldn't be driving when you get in your car, don't figure it out half way home and do the responsible thing. Instead attempt to drive all the way home. This is the message this law sends you.

    There should at least be a requirement that the police officer has to catch the driver actually driving for a DWI. If they aren't driving the cops should fine them for a tow truck to drop the person and car off at home. Which would be done immediately. The cops could get the persons information and inspect the vehicle for damage that they might have caused while driving drunk. If they find out later that some accident happened they have that person's information. There could be extra punishment for repeat offenders or something
    • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10I think the message the cops are trying to send is, if you're drunk in the drivers seat, you're going to get a ticket.
      • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -9/+46No, the message is: Just drive home, chances to get caught are lower than the chance to get caught sleeping with the keys on.
        • Koskun, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6Are you a complete moron? You are trying to argue that driving home (or anywhere for that matter) while drunk the worse is that you get caught???

          How about hitting something of gods forbid someone.

          The facts from the story lead me to highly doubt that the person got drunk in the deli, he drove at some point to get there, and as more than a few commenter's here have stated just being in the car with the keys in the ignition while drunk will get you a ticket/arrested.
          • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Considering that they keep lowering the BAC for a DUI, you don't have to be at all drunk to get arrested. In that case, yes.
          • gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No I think what he's saying is that if you punish people for trying to do the right thing, why try at all.

            Hope he takes it to a jury.
          • PugFish, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16His point is the guy got punished for doing the right thing. What do you think he's going to do the next time he's in the same situation? He's just going to drive home because he's far less likely to get caught. You'd hope he wouldn't do it again, but a lot of people just aren't that smart.

            The law is meant to deter people from doing bad things, common sense says he did the right thing and still got punished.
          • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Keep in mind most of the people crying about this arnt old enough to drive anyway, let alone drink in a bar. When they grow up they will understand.
            Saying its a good idea to keep driving home instead simply proves they are ***** retarded middle school kids. A fruit bat could figure out that you are risking a whole lot more than just a DUI while driving home.
          • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Actually mike, they're saying the LAW is saying it's better to drive home. Seeing as how his options were
            1) Sleep outside - Freeze to death in 25 F weather
            2) Sleep inside with the car off - Likely catch hypothermia since alcohol lowers your body temperature (It makes you FEEL warmer, but you're actually colder)
            3) Sleep inside with the engine running for heat - Get a DUI and $3000 fine
            4) Drive home - likely not be caught, but risk hurting someone

            Yes, DRIVING while under the influence is bad, but if you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, it's an idiotic thing to make it illegal to be responsible. And just because you like to pretend you're arguing with a bunch of 6th graders on digg doesn't make it true and it doesn't make you correct.
          • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Actually Orion, they are saying that they lack the cognitive abilities to make a correct decision when given a set of choices. The set of choices would be sleep in the car and get a DUI or STAY OUT OF THE CAR AND GET HOME ANOTHER WAY. Hmmm seems pretty obvious what the choice should be for anyone with a decent amount of logical ability.
          • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You assume he had a way of getting home. Not everyone has someone to drive them home when they get drunk. Not every city or town has cabs or buses. Sometimes, especially in more rural areas, driving IS the only way from point A to point B. And your argument about them lacking the cognitive ability to make a reasonable decision is psychotic at best. This was not a man who ran naked through the snow while drunk, this was someone who was cold, tired, and decided to sleep it off in a warm car rather than stay out in below freezing temperatures. If I were SOBER in his situation, I'd have done the same. What difference does it make that he was drunk if he did nothing to endanger anyone? He recognized that he should not drive and decided not to. Sound perfectly reasonable to me.
          • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If driving was his only means of getting home then he should have known this before drinking. It's not that hard or unfathomable to think before you drink and secure an alternate method of getting home before drinking. The law says that "sleeping it off" in your car is not legal, therefore you have to secure another method of dealing with the situation BEFORE the situation occurs.
      • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26The message is, if they can meet their quota, they'll ticket you, and ***** you if you think they should be "solving crimes" or "keeping the peace" or otherwise doing their job.
        • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Agreed. The weather was 25 farenheit. Whats he supposed to do? Freeze? Most people think the law is "gasp" reasonable and act accordingly. I mean DUI does stand for Driving Under the Influence and unless your well versed in law you'd imagine thats the only way you'd get charged for it.
          • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Exactly. Whatever happened to the age when the law was supposed to be reasonable, and not blind?
          • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No dont freeze. Take a cab. Walk home. Or how about dont get intoxicated when you have to drive home. I mean ***** DUH.
          • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5He wasn't driving home, he was sleeping it off in his car where he wouldn't freeze to death. He was putting no one at risk (Was the vehicle moving? No.). Perhaps his city doesn't believe in cabs or public transportation (a large majority of the south doesn't - we all drive everywhere). He was being the responsible citizen by realizing he was far too intoxicated to safely navigate the streets on his way home, so he didn't even try.

            So since driving himself was his only means of getting home (remember, no cabs), and it was 25 degrees outside, he took the only logical (well, at least to sane people) alternative and turned the car on to keep warm and sleep off his intoxication until he could ensure the safety of himself and others while driving home.

            The bottom line in my opinion is this: Was the vehicle moving? No. As soon as he put that car in 'Drive' or took off the parking brake, he was DUI. Until then, he's just SUI - Sitting / Sleeping Under the Influence.
      • Worldchrisis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1DUI isn't a ticket, if it was nobody would be complaining about this, DUI is a night in jail and a massive fine.
    • TimOgg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14that would be far too sensible so it wont happen
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11Not quite. The message is "Find a friend, take a taxi". Drunk drivers are a menace.
      • mrgreen4242, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18To bad this guy wasn't driving. Are sleeping drunks a menace too? You need to hurry up so you're not late for your MADD meeting...
        • dreesemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Oh yea, so he was getting drunk at the local deli then? How do you think he got to that parking lot, genius. Chances are he was driving home from the bar, realized he was too drunk to get home and parked in the deli parking lot.
          • scrubadub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Or he parked in the parking lot and went to the bar... nah that's too far fetched.
          • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Or he met friends at the deli because it was convenient, they decided to go to a bar, and they had just dropped him off at his car. Realizing he was too drunk to drive home, he just crashed in the car to keep warm until he could.

            There are any number of possibilities here, folks. Yes he *could* have driven to the deli parking lot. Prove it. All your evidence is circumstantial (to say the least), and I say that's enough to prove reasonable doubt.

            What happened to our idea that it was better that 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man pay the price for a crime he didn't commit?
          • Worldchrisis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Which is the responsible thing to do? Better he pulled over and tried to sleep it off than continuing home and perhaps killing someone, it cannot be proven that he DROVE anywhere while drunk, he is innocent until proven guilty, and the law should treat him as such.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2drunk sleepers are a menace too. we should start keeping tabs on who buys alcohol and arrest them when they go to bed at night. ban drunk sleeping for the children!
    • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Moral of the story: Buy a car that does NOT use a key (a few cars use a fob system. the avalon, g35, and sts immediately come to mind). But officer, there is no key in the ignition ;)

      but seriously, i dont understand how people can let their car idle for so long. call me a treehugger in that sense, but it pisses me off whenever anyone just idles there for more than 5 minutes (because its killing our air). I personally turn off the car if i know im going to idle for more than two minutes.
      • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's 25 Degrees F outside and your car gets caught in a snow drift. Do you keep your car off to save the environment, or do you let your car stay warm enough for as long as possible to maximize your chances of living thru the ordeal?

        Now add alcohol to the equation. Hypothermia risks increase when consuming alcohol.

        Personally, I would have driven home.
      • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Im from Miami. We don't know what 25F is
    • clackerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7it doesn't have as much to do with cops being fair or getting drunks off the road in the name of safety, it has to do with the multiple thousand dollar fines the city makes off your drunk ass.
    • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I've already learned my lesson. Back when I was in college. I drove to my buddies house and proceeded to get wasted. I decided it was a good thing to walk home instead of drive. I wasn't being loud or obnoxious. I was walking with two friends. I crossed the street before they did and there were two bike cops there that handed me a drunk in public and took me to jail. I learned my lesson. I drove home every time since then.
    • mcduckov, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Under your preferred method a cop would have to wait until a drunk gets in the car, starts it, and drives away. That is an unacceptable risk to public safety.

      The real solution is not to be in a situation where alcohol and your car are likely to need to mix.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0yeah I'm sure you've never been in a situation where your plan changed at no fault to yourself. E.g. you found our your designated driver got drunk too, no taxi service in your area, 10 degrees outside when it was supposed to be 40, etc. etc. You live in a perfect world, must be nice.
  • trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24As long as your in the drivers seat, you're liable. (yes, you're driving a parked car; It is the 'drivers' seat for a reason...)
    Most cops will grace you some leeway if the keys aren't in the ignition but it's not something you should expect.
    • DeathfireD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12it's legal to sleep in your car drunk as long as the keys are not in the ignition here in New Hampshire. My friend did it and a cop knocked on his window to wake him up, the cop asked for a breath test and he failed it but since the keys where not in the ignition the cop only gave him a warning and ended up driving him back to his house where he had to get someone else to drive him back to his vehicle later on that day.
      • maffiou, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35I wish all the cops were like that... Giving you a lift home, that's so civilized...
      • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Sometimes if you're not a prick, they're not pricks.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Most of the time, if you're not a prick, they're still pricks.
        • nene7070, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i have to say, ive met a lot of cops over the years, and only met one *****.
        • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And I've been pulled over for speeding by a LOT of cops, and only met one that WASN'T an *****. Go figure...
      • da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know in canada if you are drunk and in the car with your keys, even if your sleeping in the back seat they'll give you a DUI, the few times I have slept in my car drunk I have been sure to put the keys in the trunk(which is still illegal by the way) while I dose. sometimes you just don't have a choice I know I've been camping and had the tent
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Actually, in a lot of places, being in a car and having access to the keys to that car while being drunk is enough to get you busted. I think Michigan is like that.
      • Cerebral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4FL too. That's why you should lock your keys in the trunk.
        • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, that is why you should carry a gun and be prepared to use it to remind cops that Americans will not tolerate a police state.
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well if I'm walking down the street, I could mug the guy next to me, take his keys, and drive his car off. Technically, I do have some access to those keys...
    • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"grace you some leeway"

      As in, do you a favor by not punishing you for doing nothing wrong?
  • sacr3dc0w, on 10/10/2007, -23/+14Here in Oregon it's a DUI if the key is in the ignition, this has been common sense for ages.
    • Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Common sense?

      LOL@U
    • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Oh, now THAT is rich.
    • ldkronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So you are saying it is common sense that you don't actually have to be driving to be charged with DRIVING under the influence? With "common sense" like that, I bet standing on somebody's sidewalk is enough to be charge with breaking and entering
      • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It may not be common sense, however I would say it is common knowledge. Way back when, when I first learned to drive, I was taught that if the key is in the ignition, then it's a DUI.
    • themoose, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Common knowledge, maybe, but sense, definitely not.
    • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just like it's common sense to let yourself freeze to death or risk driving home and killing someone while drunk, rather than sleep it off in your nice toasty (parked) car.
    • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Common sense would be calling a cab you retards. What if he wakes up 2 hours later and decides he's okay to drive but still drunk? That's why this law exists.
  • webcure, on 10/10/2007, -13/+65Do I understand that If you are intoxicated, it is better to drive home than sleep it off in your car?
    Sounds pretty wack!
    • mjkkjm, on 10/10/2007, -20/+24Or, alternatively, don't be stupid enough to start drinking when you know you've got to drive home.
      Rocket science, it ain't.
      • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5See I dont get this. Most of the time digg is all into false arguments and simple solutions. mjkkjm provides the simplest solution and gets dugg down meanwhile someone with flawed reasoning above him gets dugg up.
        • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think we're seeing a MADD Astroturf campaign going down here. Many of these comments are severely backwards in the rankings from where they usually would be knowing the DIGG community's trends.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the flawed logic chicagodj is that you're equating sleeping in your car with driving home. they're not the same thing. if you start drinking and can sleep in your car, then you do not need to drive home. i've gone to parties where i had no intent on driving home, but the most comfortable place to sleep was my car.
    • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I bet you were really popular in college, weren't you? Sometimes things just happen. You don't intend to get drunk when you go out to dinner, but for whatever reason, you do... Or hell, you have a cough and take one too many hits of cough syrup on an empty stomach. Either is enough to get your BAC level over the limit.

      But, after realizing you're too intoxicated to drive home safely, what is the most reasonable course of action? To sleep it off in your car leaps to mind, if you ask me. It's not about how you got to the situation - hindsight is 20x20. It's about the decisions you make when you actually ARE in that situation.
    • WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1It doesn't "just happen" to you at all, you cause it. You have to actually drink the alcohol. It's called "responsible drinking". If you can't practice it, don't drink.
      Popular in college? I don't think that was supposed to be the reason to go, if it was yours you wasted a lot of money )hopefully not your parents). No wonder the national IQ keeps slipping.
      • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1your DIGG name is Peyote and you're saying not to get ***** up?

        And yes, having fun in college is a major part of the job description. I had a blast and graduated on the dean's list.
    • stinger666, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1It's better to call a cab, or better, not drink at all.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No, you understand wrng. It is better to not get in your car at all. Or to not put hte keys in the ignition and not get in the DRIVER'S seat.
    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cops are there to bring revenue into the city.
  • mjesq, on 10/10/2007, -8/+54that's ridiculous...it should be encouraged to sleep in your parked car when intoxicated.
    • bobblender, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4encouraged? to have drunks get into the drivers side doors of their car, turn on the igntion, then making a drunken judgement to sleep? getting into a car, by yourself, in the drivers seat when youre drunk is asking for trouble.
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, the drunken judgement to sleep. Classic.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you realize you argument is horrible flawed. i've gotten into the drivers seat plent of times drunk with the complete intention of not driving. encouraging someone to sleep in a parked car while drunk is NOT the same as encouraging the person to drive drunk. i'd hope you could see the difference.
    • georgetds, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4What is encouraged is to plan ahead. Too many people are too selfish or lazy to be bothered though, and find themselves drunk with no way home but by driving their car. "Oh, poor me, it's not fair", they might whine (wine?) after the fact, when it is pointed out that they can not drive or even be in a motor vehicle with their keys, but the fact of the matter is they had the choice all along. Why should we feel sympathy for drunks who can not be bothered with planning ahead?

      Oh, and I don't the area this guy lives, but most places I hang out at don't have a deli next to the bar... how did he get in that parking lot?
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Perhaps he met some friends for dinner before someone suggested hitting up the bar across town. They all rode there and back together, and he had just been dropped off at his car again... Hell, he could have taken a cab across town and a cab back. He could have walked around the corner to the bar and walked back. He could have met a bum on the street as he was leaving the deli with a bottle in a plain brown paper bag and decided "Hey, today's a great day to get trashed with the local homeless!" There are any number of possibilities here people. Until you can PROVE he drove there, where's the legal case? "Well, I think the most likely way for him to have gotten there was to drive." isn't admissible in court.

        Besides, even if he HAD driven that far, shouldn't we commend the guy for realizing he was too drunk to drive and pulling over to sleep it off? Yes, drunk driving is bad, but we want to encourage people to be responsible, not make them bitter and jaded against the laws we're supposed to be supporting.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1even the best thought out plans do not always work out accordingly. selfish? lazy? no, you're just being extremely ignorant to the fact that choosing to sleep in your car instead of driving it is the responsible thing to do.
      • Hynuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Being intoxicated and "a drunk" aren't always the same thing. If you've never had to make the decision whether or not to get behind the wheel under enough influence to make it illegal, then you've probably never had alcohol. Unfortunately, not all people hold the same unearthly wisdom that you seem to so readily backpack. Given that, I'd rather my family get home safe without the annoyance of a drunk driver crushing into them on the way...how about you?

        "Why should we feel sympathy for drunks who can not be bothered with planning ahead?"
        Planning ahead is: not killing someone on the way home. Getting off the road is a good start.
    • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2/sarcasm
  • thomashallock, on 10/10/2007, -8/+44Most parking lots are not public property and are therefore exempt from moving vehicle violations.
    • MASTERPL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Stupid pigs will still harass you and try to ticket you.
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, because you were loitering and probably doing something nefarious. No one ever sits in a parked car in a parking lot for law-abiding purposes... And people wonder why I despise our legal system: it's more interested in finding people who are guilty than it is in reasonably ensuring the safety of those people.
    • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24Wow that didn't even occur to me. You make a very interesting point though. I'm not sure what the letter of the law is but I'm pretty sure you can drive as drunk as you want on private property.
      • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7As long as it's your property.
        • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6As long as the area isn't owned by the state, the police force has no reason to check for driving credentials (or BAC). As long as the property owner doesn't mind people sleeping in their parking lot, and as long as you aren't doing any damage, you should be fine.
          • dreesemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I believe this in incorrect. Having a DWI myself, during the class they said you could get a DWI for working on a car in your driveway, something about there being direct access to the road. Jokingly we said then we'd work on the car in the grass, and we were told that was fine. Good laws!
        • mrgreen4242, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sounds like a business opportunity for someplace to me.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Wow, ***** Digg. I make a comment that I've never double posted before, and magically, a few minutes later, Digg fixes that for me. Goddamn I really hate this comment system.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I heard a story of a guy getting a DUI falling asleep in his driveway with the car running (made it home, just not out of the car).

          Of course, the problem is, even IF the cops know what the law actually says, they still take advantage of the fact that most people don't, and most people don't think to question cops, or simply don't want to cause any trouble.
          • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5While the cops do have some discretion, being charge with a driving offense ain't the same as being convicted of the offense.

            Hell, I've had cops wait to give me a breathalyser for over an hour. Just long enough to let me pass. What probably happened is when the guy woke up he was belligerent to the pigs, and they used all the power at their discretion.

            Don't ***** with the Pigs, and you are less likely to be pulled into the mud.
          • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I totally agree that you need to work the people involved. That's true in just about anything in life. Still, in this instance, the fact that the guy was arrested just appalls me. He made the responsible decision to sleep it off in his car, rather than drive home, and he's being punished for that. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work...
    • lowrentkicker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Doesn't matter for two reasons: 1) It's private property, so if the owner doesn't want you on their property then you're trespassing. Doesn't matter that it's a parking lot, you're an "implied invitee." If they want you gone then you're gone. Doesn't matter if you're drunk in a car or drunk walking around. So you're not busted for DUI, you're still in trouble. 2) Being allowed to drive is not a right it's something you apply to do with the state you live in. Every state has laws that say if you are on surface designed and intended for driving, regardless of who owns it, all traffic laws apply.
      • KlipschFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have been told that in the state of Florida the Highway Patrol aren't restricted in their jurisdiction to "driving surface." We still have a crap load of dirt roads and field "right of ways" here.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually, if it's private property and the owner of the property doesn't already have a deal with the cops to remove trespassers (businesses and whatnot) then the cops are not even allowed to come and question why you're there unless the property owner calls them and complains. i have a church across the street from my house with a big parking lot and since we don't have our own driveway they let us park over there. there have been times when new officers have come and checked out my car and i've subsequently gone and sat on my car just so that when the cop returns by on patrol he sees me. several times i've been questioned and i've politely told the cop to go ***** off because he has no right to question my presence on the church's private property unless they specifically call them about any given particular instance. i've gotten some lip back, but in the end i always win out because it's the law.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not quite true- I was involved in a minor accident a few months ago and had expired tags, but the cop didn't cite me for the tags as he said that since the accident happened on a private parking lot, and not a public street, it didn't matter. I did get an improper backing charge, but I deserved that.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Every state has laws that say if you are on surface designed and intended for driving, regardless of who owns it, all traffic laws apply."
        Wouldn't that make professional racing illegal?
    • georgetds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4At least in Alberta it is still illegal to operate a motor vehicle drunk even on private property. And it should be, why should anyone's life be at risk because someone is operating a vehicle capable of being a deadly object drunk?
      • TygerrTygerr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah I agree, but not moving isn't operating a motor vehicle. Unless you believe that sitting in a stationary vehicle and drunkenly making the wipers go crazy is a danger to others.
      • Kishoba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey - you must be a communist! Since when do you get to decide what I do with my body? It's the job of the government to write laws that protect it's citizens from others, not to write laws to protect a citizen from themselves. It's called personal responsibility. If we went by your logic, no one would drive a car, because even doing so puts them at risk of death with over 40,000 vehicular deaths each year. No more sky diving, or any other extreme sport. Oh - and by the way - no more cooking. Where's the most commen place in the household to get in an accident?

        You should really think your arguments through first.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"why should anyone's life be at risk because someone is operating a vehicle capable of being a deadly object drunk?" as long as they have signs to disallow trespassing then the only person whose life is at risk is the person driving. if i want to undergo an activity that only puts myself in danger, i should be allowed to. there's more risk in doing many "extreme" sports than there is putting around my yard in a vehicle while drunk. oh, and cops need permission or probably cause to come onto private property.
    • tomrf618, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In Pennsylvania and Delaware driving in a parking lot drunk is illegal. Think about it, you can't put all those people at risk just because it's private property.
    • DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Here in New York, and I imagine in most states, DUI/DWI is not a moving violation, it's a crime covered in the penal code, not the V&T code. The fact that you are on private property is irrelevant.
    • mblitch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It doesn't matter who owns the property, it is the public right to enter or leave the property. A parking lot, though privately controlled, is publicly accessible and thereby under police jurisdiction.

      [source: http://www.dui-attorney-arrest-info.com/duifaqs.html]
      Q: Can I be guilty of DUI if I am driving only on private property?

      A: Again, the answer depends of several issues. Some states restrict the offense to public property but most states make it unlawful to be DUI on private property. Remember, private property is generally defined as that property on which the general public has no right of ingress or egress (coming in or going out). So, even though your local market's parking lot is owned by them, it would be deemed public property since the public has the right to enter and leave as they wish. Even if DUI is a crime on private property, in at least on estate, Florida, the law does not seem to permit an arrest for DUI on private property. Yes, the law is complex.
    • samby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Its good to see the usual digg dumbasses are out in force today, giving +28 diggs to thomashallock's erroneous comment about how parking lots are considered private property, but only +1 digg to the right answer above.
  • Lochie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15This happened to a friend of mine, he had the key in the ignition to turn the heater on because it was cold. He was even sitting in the passenger seat.
    • prolog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23That doesn't make much sense. If their definition of DUI simply involves being in a car while drunk with the engine on then wouldn't it be illegal for someone else to drive you around when you're drunk?
      • mrgreen4242, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you're the only one in a car and you have access to the keys of that car while you are drunk, it's a DUI in a lot of places.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What if it's your friend's car, your friend's keys, and you're waiting for him because he's still inside? If you're really trashed, you might not want to stay in the bar.
        • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Then you should have thought of that before you got that trashed. Or you should have taken a cab home. Why is this so hard for diggers to understand?
      • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The drunk person has to be the one "operating" the vehicle, and by putting the key in and turning it, the vehicle is operating.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What if it's your friend's car, and he started it for you and went back into the bar? Are you still "operating" it by sitting in it?
        • georgetds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3... went into bar leaving you in care and control ...
        • ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The vehicle is operating, but YOU are not operating the vehicle. Subtle difference.
    • Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or imagine leaving the car in accessory to allow your friend to listen to the radio. And on top of that, imagine your friend, being interrogated by the cops, doesn't have a license. Now, would he face charges on not having a valid driver's license on top of the DUI for sitting in the passenger seat with the radio on?
  • zdux0012, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Buried as lame
    I've had it with digg censoring stories, there are more popular stories starting on the second page.
    How is this story the first link.

    Try Stumble Upon, It's great.
    • mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless you click one of the "Top in xyz" options, the stories are not ordered by number of diggs, but by when they were 'made popular', so that you get the newer stories first. Unlike StumbleUpon which is random.
    • DrummerAndrew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1StumbleUpon is the shizzle for rizzle. I Love it.
  • meobrien, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42I was listening to a radio reporter comment on this story, and related one of his own. His father was a Master Sergeant in the Air Force, a "glorified babysitter," and one of his jobs was to bail out his soldiers. An enlisted man's car had broken down three blocks from his house, and he was performing repairs. Not only were both front tires off of the car, but the wheels themselves, not to mention the axle. The car was up on cinderblocks.
    The guy was performing repairs, skipping back to his house to drink. Since his keys were in the ignition, however, he was arrested for DUI. The case was thrown out, but still, what was that cop thinking?
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1I'll be the first to call "*****". Master Sargent's are anything but glorified babysitters. And most likely the dolt was arrested for drinking in public or public intoxication.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Obviously you've never been in the military.
      • dartmanx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Master Sergeant was likely a First Sergeant, whose job actually IS keeping an eye on the Airmen.
    • faskippy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Uh uh, unreq. I know someone who got harrassed because the police found him sitting in his car, in his own yard. Yes, he was drunk. He was at his own home, working on said car. He had the car up on blocks, as he was doing a brake job. Wheels were off. The cops came into his yard and wanted to make him take a breathalyzer. He refused. They said they were going to give him a DUI, until he explained that the car had no wheels on it (it was dark, and they didn't notice). So they told him then that they could arrest him for an attempted DUI. He laughed at them and stated his position. They left. Stupid cops.
      • sfrench, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Something about the phrase "attempted DUI" just makes me laugh.

        'Son, you have a .079. You ain't drunk, but I'm taking you in for an attempted DUI!"
      • jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it was dark. right?
  • BillDoE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5First off all if the guy was asleep at the bar, in his truck, he may have been trying to be responsible. How did he get to this Deli? Second, where I live (Indiana, USA) you don't even need to have the vehicle running to get a DUI. You must remove the key from the ignition.
    • bongerman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I live in indy too, but if you take the keys out of the ignition, they will just get you for an OUI. I know from first hand experience :(
    • waif69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That Deli is within walking distance from the local bar and is sometimes parked in by patrons during peak hours of the bar. Secondly, in NJ, (I don't drink) if you are tired and pull over to take a quick nap to recharge, the police will tell you to get back on the road. It happened to me in Jan 07.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"if you are tired and pull over to take a quick nap to recharge, the police will tell you to get back on the road." that's ridiculous. driving while fatigued is dangerous as well. it's actually more dangerous than driving under the influence of pot.
  • lampajoo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+63Who cares if it's "the law?" It's still ***** up.
    • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6If someone is sitting in a running car drunk out of their gourd, I'm afraid they're going to start driving, and that happens way more often than not. I don't see why it's so ***** up. Just one of the conditions of getting blotto...don't operate a vehicle. Sounds pretty logical to me.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah, perfectly logical until you consider the fact that many times, people get charged for doing something that no sane person would consider "operating" a vehicle.
        • Veraiste, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Why can't the police wait another minute for the guy to start driving the car?
    • tomrf618, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Yea here's an idea.. if you drove somewhere don't get drunk! what? responsibility.. what's that...
    • bpmox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. It was up to the cop to decide if he would enforce this or not so he's a ***** ***** for doing so.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am the law! - Judge Dread
  • GrooTheWanderer, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6This isn't entirely unreasonable. The vehicle wasn't in motion but he was still "driving" it in the sense that he had control of it, especially with the engine running. In his inebriated condition, how easy would it have been to accidentally knock it into the wrong gear and run over someone?
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How easily could he have just said "well I'm sober enough to drive"
    • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes, yes. let's punish him for doing the responsible thing. that sounds entirely reasonable.
  • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12This is asking for a change of laws.
    If you're standing still on a parking lot when it's cold and you've got the ignition on to warm yourself while you're sleeping, you can't get arrested for DUI.

    I say: keep a warm blanket in your car at all time.

    This law will soon change into something weird, like:
    It's prohibited to fish while sitting on a camel. (somewhere in Idaho)
    • dienaked, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If you are sitting still on a parking lot and it's cold and you are drunk, you shoulda found a ride home before 3AM.

      • chicagodj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dont know dienaked. That seems like such a radical concept. You mean there are other ways to get home besides the car they came in? How could one possibly think of that? It's so insanely simple.
      • WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No doubt. Taxi cab fare is a lotr cheaper than a DUI...
    • Zephyrspecial, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's actually illegal to fish of the back of a Giraffe, not a camel, in Fernan Lake, in Idaho. The law was written years ago when circus people weren't liked in the area, and apparently, when they were in town, they went fishing from their giraffe.
      • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i'm guessing they had the giraffe go in the water up to it's back and they used it like an island.
  • teaBagger, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3OMG!!!! This made the ***** front page...
    Time to -Digg DIGG
  • Insuperabilis, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Hey, this is the exact thing that happened in Everybody Loves Raymond.
  • conna, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6the dude should have passed out at the party or where ever he was at. At least he might have awoken in some girls bed with her in it.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6yeah, that's how it works. no wonder diggers don't get laid.
  • aiten, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3In the UK, even sitting in the drivers seat would get you arrested. I think that seems fair. It only takes your drunken ass to forget you can't drive, and you're away!
    • Mitijea, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No, it takes your drunken ass to actually drive away to be illegal. Since when is the chance of breaking the law against the law? By that logic, anyone standing on a sidewalk in the middle of a block looking across the street should be busted for jaywalking.
      • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're right, let's relax laws as much as possible so we can get away with putting others at risk.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and you're an idiot for bringing it to an illogical conclusion. driving drunk puts other's lives at risk. that, however, actually involves driving. you're not putting others lives at risk by deciding not to drive drunk.
  • DoNotWant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yup. Happened to a buddy of min