Would the carspin fuzz allow this?

[Soup DeVille]

Obviously, it depends on how drunk the person is in the first place. How many "leaners" (ie, people who are close to the legal limit) are going to decide to sleep in their cars in the first place? In my experience, not many. Most people who decide to go with this "option" are extremely intoxicated...like, still drunk when they drive to work the next morning intoxicated.

IMHO, this simply isn't a real option for a drunk. The right options would be to find a sober ride home...friend, cab, whatever. Drunks tend to have a poor grasp of time, as well as a poor grasp of their level of intoxication. Depending on a drunk to decide when enough time has passed where he is legally able to drive (in reality, impossible to calculate since you would need your starting BAC) is like playing Russian roulette.

So, when he does decide to drive, test him then.

Some dudes aint got many friends, or much money.

I'm just saying: If he took the option NOT to drive, that should at least be a consideration. That he decided not to freeze and stay in a warm car shouldn't automatically be called an uintent to drive drunk.

Sure, he may have made a number of bad choices that night: but clearly there was a point when he decided NOT to drive.

[bing_oh]

So, when he does decide to drive, test him then.

It's illegal in Ohio to have physical control of a vehicle under the influence. I don't feel bad about arresting for it.

Some dudes aint got many friends, or much money.

If he's got money to get sloshed, he's got money for a cab. If he can't afford to get a cab or have one single friend to drive him home, either don't drink or drink where you don't have to drive. There's no excuse for DUI...it's a decision.

I'm just saying: If he took the option NOT to drive, that should at least be a consideration. That he decided not to freeze and stay in a warm car shouldn't automatically be called an uintent to drive drunk.

Sure, he may have made a number of bad choices that night: but clearly there was a point when he decided NOT to drive.

No, he decided not to drive now. In my experience, he will drive and it will probably be soon...far too soon for him to do so safely, if my 15 years experience has taught me anything.

[Soup DeVille]

No, he decided not to drive now. In my experience, he will drive and it will probably be soon...far too soon for him to do so safely, if my 15 years experience has taught me anything.

If you're arresting dudes before they ever start driving anywhere, how do you know?

[Rupert]

I think a lot of cops would benefit from a statistics and study design class.

[MX793]

If you're arresting dudes before they ever start driving anywhere, how do you know?

You know those precogs in Minority Report?  They're real.

[bing_oh]

If you're arresting dudes before they ever start driving anywhere, how do you know?

If he drove, he would be arrested for OVI. If he's in physical control of a vehicle, he would be arrested for Physical Control. I don't have to know he's going to drive or even believe that he might drive in the future...he's already in violation of state law before he even drives. How complicated is that?

[Soup DeVille]

If he drove, he would be arrested for OVI. If he's in physical control of a vehicle, he would be arrested for Physical Control. I don't have to know he's going to drive or even believe that he might drive in the future...he's already in violation of state law before he even drives. How complicated is that?

I'm not arguing what the law is.

I'm asking whether or not the law is the way it should be.

How complicated is that?

[Rupert]

The law is the law because law.

[bing_oh]

I'm not arguing what the law is.

I'm asking whether or not the law is the way it should be.

How complicated is that?

And my response has been that, in my experience, the law is a good one. That people who "sleep it off" in their vehicles will, much more often than not, end up driving before it's safe and legal for them to do so and the physical control law is a way to both deter this behavior and to stop people before they take the next step that is more dangerous to the public (that is, drive drunk). I also asserted that DUI is a choice and, as such, a totally preventable crime, with plenty of other responsible options that wouldn't get you arrested. "Sleeping it off" in the car is not one of those responsible options.

[Soup DeVille]

And my response has been that, in my experience, the law is a good one. That people who "sleep it off" in their vehicles will, much more often than not, end up driving before it's safe and legal for them to do so and the physical control law is a way to both deter this behavior and to stop people before they take the next step that is more dangerous to the public (that is, drive drunk). I also asserted that DUI is a choice and, as such, a totally preventable crime, with plenty of other responsible options that wouldn't get you arrested. "Sleeping it off" in the car is not one of those responsible options.

Or, the law could just as easily persuade me to drive home anyways, because I'm taking a chance on getting busted no matter what I do, and I'm less likely to draw attention on the ten minute drive home than sleeping in a car for three or four hours.

[bing_oh]

Or, the law could just as easily persuade me to drive home anyways, because I'm taking a chance on getting busted no matter what I do, and I'm less likely to draw attention on the ten minute drive home than sleeping in a car for three or four hours.

Or maybe it would persuade you to be responsible and get a sober ride home. And, considering physical control generally carries a lesser penalty than DUI, you'd also be an idiot.

[Soup DeVille]

Or maybe it would persuade you to be responsible and get a sober ride home. And, considering physical control generally carries a lesser penalty than DUI, you'd also be an idiot.

But I'm much more likely to get it sitting and waiting than I am going home. Maybe I had made plans and they didn't work out. Maybe the ride I'd arranged flaked out, or I pissed them off. Maybe I'm still waiting for that dude to show up.

The point still is; you don't know if a guy intends to drive drunk until he actually does.

[bing_oh]

But I'm much more likely to get it sitting and waiting than I am going home. Maybe I had made plans and they didn't work out. Maybe the ride I'd arranged flaked out, or I pissed them off. Maybe I'm still waiting for that dude to show up.

The point still is; you don't know if a guy intends to drive drunk until he actually does.

What if, what if, what if...we could do that all day. Like I said, it's illegal to be in physical control of a vehicle intoxicated so intent to drive drunk doesn't matter. And I have no problem with that law. In my experience, it helps to prevent DUI's. If you're drunk, get a freakin' sober ride home and stay out of your car. You hop in your car, you get what you get...I have no remorse for making that arrest.

[Soup DeVille]

What if, what if, what if...we could do that all day. Like I said, it's illegal to be in physical control of a vehicle intoxicated so intent to drive drunk doesn't matter. And I have no problem with that law. In my experience, it helps to prevent DUI's. If you're drunk, get a freakin' sober ride home and stay out of your car. You hop in your car, you get what you get...I have no remorse for making that arrest.

Yes, I understand its the law. We've been through that already.

[bing_oh]

Yes, I understand its the law. We've been through that already.

And I know you don't like the law (or, more likely, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point) and I have no problem with it. Guess we're done here.

[Soup DeVille]

And I know you don't like the law (or, more likely, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point) and I have no problem with it. Guess we're done here.

No, its that I don't think the existence of a law justifies itself. Go back to the harm principle if you must: What harm is a guy doing to anybody sleeping in his car; whether he's drunk or not? The fact that he might in the future drive drunk? You can go a step further and ask if the law actually encourages reckless behavior: and I say that it very possibly could.

[bing_oh]

No, its that I don't think the existence of a law justifies itself. Go back to the harm principle if you must: What harm is a guy doing to anybody sleeping in his car; whether he's drunk or not? The fact that he might in the future drive drunk? You can go a step further and ask if the law actually encourages reckless behavior: and I say that it very possibly could.

The guy's in control of a large hunk of steel with the ability to move at high speeds...the potential for harm justifies the law. Your "harm principle" really doesn't hold water anyway. If laws only apply if there's harm to another, then you get rid of DUI until the guy slams into another car and kills somebody. Personally, I'd rather stop that before it happens.

And, no, in my experience I see absolutely no support for your argument that physical control laws encourage reckless behavior. You act as if drunks contemplate the various potential legal repercussions before driving. It's a ludicrous idea.

[Soup DeVille]

You act as if drunks contemplate the various potential legal repercussions before driving. It's a ludicrous idea.

LOLOLOLOL.

So, explain the purpose of DUI laws then.

[bing_oh]

LOLOLOLOL.

So, explain the purpose of DUI laws then.

Oh, I dunno...arresting drunk drivers?

[NomisR]

What if, what if, what if...we could do that all day. Like I said, it's illegal to be in physical control of a vehicle intoxicated so intent to drive drunk doesn't matter. And I have no problem with that law. In my experience, it helps to prevent DUI's. If you're drunk, get a freakin' sober ride home and stay out of your car. You hop in your car, you get what you get...I have no remorse for making that arrest.

So basically, based on Soup's scenario, if the bar's closed, the original ride couldn't make it, cab will take a long time to come, will you guys allow people to wait in their car or should they wait in the freezing cold or they would be arrested for having control of a vehicle in which they have no intention of operating?  Based on your statements, you would still arrest him because he should've waited in the cold for the cab because he didn't plan properly and sitting in the car with the heat on is having control, is that correct? 

[Soup DeVille]

Oh, I dunno...arresting drunk drivers?

Nothing at all to do with discouraging drunk driving by creating various legal repercussions then?

[NomisR]

Nothing at all to do with discouraging drunk driving by creating various legal repercussions then?

If the driver is sleeping it off, they would still be driving drunk anyways because if they're sleeping it off, they're likely to be too drunk so they opt to sleep it off.  So therefore, arresting them simply prevents the inevitable of drunk driving.  Don't you get it? 

[bing_oh]

Nothing at all to do with discouraging drunk driving by creating various legal repercussions then?

I said it was ludicrous to think that a drunk was going to weigh the varying degrees of potential legal repercussions between physical control and DUI while deciding whether to drive or "sleep it off" in his car (your belief arguing that it "encourages reckless behavior"), and you naturally are trying to twist what I said. Sorry, not gonna happen. And, no, deterrence is not the main purpose of any law. If it deters, great...but the point of a law is to address an action that is deemed socially unacceptable with legal repercussions.

[bing_oh]

So basically, based on Soup's scenario, if the bar's closed, the original ride couldn't make it, cab will take a long time to come, will you guys allow people to wait in their car or should they wait in the freezing cold or they would be arrested for having control of a vehicle in which they have no intention of operating?  Based on your statements, you would still arrest him because he should've waited in the cold for the cab because he didn't plan properly and sitting in the car with the heat on is having control, is that correct?

Pretty much...though Soup's scenario is, in my experience, an unrealistic joke. Drunks don't wait for rides sitting in their cars to stay warm. Never seen it, not in 15 years of LE.

Soup's obsessed with the "intent to operate," which makes no difference to me. The drunk being in control of the vehicle is enough, both legally and (for me) morally, for an arrest. The potential for operation is simply too high and the consequences of that operation too great. When a person takes the first step to take that vehicle into his control, it's in the best interest of society for LE to act.

[Soup DeVille]

I said it was ludicrous to think that a drunk was going to weigh the varying degrees of potential legal repercussions between physical control and DUI while deciding whether to drive or "sleep it off" in his car (your belief arguing that it "encourages reckless behavior"), and you naturally are trying to twist what I said. Sorry, not gonna happen. And, no, deterrence is not the main purpose of any law. If it deters, great...but the point of a law is to address an action that is deemed socially unacceptable with legal repercussions.

Nowhere in this did I twist anything you said.

[FoMoJo]

I said it was ludicrous to think that a drunk was going to weigh the varying degrees of potential legal repercussions between physical control and DUI while deciding whether to drive or "sleep it off" in his car (your belief arguing that it "encourages reckless behavior"), and you naturally are trying to twist what I said. Sorry, not gonna happen. And, no, deterrence is not the main purpose of any law. If it deters, great...but the point of a law is to address an action that is deemed socially unacceptable with legal repercussions.

Have you ever driven while drunk?

edit: Just wondering if you had any experience from the other perspective. 

[NomisR]

Pretty much...though Soup's scenario is, in my experience, an unrealistic joke. Drunks don't wait for rides sitting in their cars to stay warm. Never seen it, not in 15 years of LE.

Soup's obsessed with the "intent to operate," which makes no difference to me. The drunk being in control of the vehicle is enough, both legally and (for me) morally, for an arrest. The potential for operation is simply too high and the consequences of that operation too great. When a person takes the first step to take that vehicle into his control, it's in the best interest of society for LE to act.

But then again, how much control does he have if he's simply sleeping? 

In the end, the argument is pretty much, if you want to drink, get a ride, if you can't get a ride, don't drink.  If you want to drink and can't get a ride, stay at home.  If you don't want to stay at home and can't get a ride but want a drink, well, too bad.  Pretty much, the answer is don't drink or get a ride? 

Here's another thing, what about if you live within walking distance of the bar, can you get arrested for public intoxication too? 

[bing_oh]

But then again, how much control does he have if he's simply sleeping?

How much effort does it take to turn the ignition key and put the car into drive? In the driver's seat with the keys in your possession is significant control.

In the end, the argument is pretty much, if you want to drink, get a ride, if you can't get a ride, don't drink.  If you want to drink and can't get a ride, stay at home.  If you don't want to stay at home and can't get a ride but want a drink, well, too bad.  Pretty much, the answer is don't drink or get a ride?

Pretty much.

Here's another thing, what about if you live within walking distance of the bar, can you get arrested for public intoxication too?

Not unless you're so drunk you can't take care of yourself. Of you do something otherwise disorderly while walking home.