Yeah, i tend to agree i think. However, i don't see how you 'can't see how' this doesn't incentivize people to continue driving drunk once they start. Stopping probably increases their chances of getting caught by an order of magnitude.

Well sure, if they just pull off to the side of the freeway and take a nap right there.
But pulling off the main road to stop on any residential street or parking lot shouldn't make them more likely to get caught.

Dc,

Lapka doesn’t get the non-native English speaker out. Her English writing is better than most of the native English speakers here!

Ahh, that's where you're wrong. I've done exactly that twice in my life (after loooooong poker sessions involving zero drugs or alcohol) and had the police knock on my window both times.

Park the car, turn off the engine and hop in the passenger seat or the back and take a nap. Presto, no charges.

Drive drunk and pull a Michael Floyd, pay the consequences. Not sure why this is remotely hard to understand.

If it can be proven that you were driving drunk, you should get popped even if you happened to be pulling over to help an old lady across the road.

Probably because it's just wrong, i guess, probably depending on what state you're in. My state's supreme court has ruled that you only need to be in or near a vehicle with the keys, and the keys don't even need to be on your person. The car doesn't even need to be operable.

Anecdotally, my (work) partner was on a jury that convicted a guy of DUI that for sure had not driven anywhere. He'd gotten in a drunken screaming match with his wife then went out and slept in the back of his work van. The neighbors had called the police about the domestic fight and the wife pointed the police to the van in the apartment parking lot. They woke him up and arrested him for DUI. Partner said the judge was very clear that being in a vehicle in possession of the keys constitutes "physical control" as per the law and that all of the jurors thought it was a slam dunk easy case.

So I guess my advice would be not to go anywhere near any motor vehicle if you've been drinking.

There was no worst. The bottom baseline was boredom, and it never got worse than that. If I never take a dump in front of other people again, however, I'm good with that.

Best: Probably the last night, when I looked around and it all just seemed like a weird cocktail party. Everyone was in a good mood and hyped up on caffeine and laughing ... it didn't seem like jail. ... Of course, I was also just counting the hours until midnight.

I can imagine lots of awful outcomes and situations in jail. But for me, my week, the worst was simply boredom. And that's why I came to the conclusion that jail was stupid. It's a bunch of bored guards watching a bunch of bored guys, with the whole purpose to make time disappear.

It just doesn't make any sense to me. I can't get my head around it, that jail is the best way to deal with some of these people. Basically just tucking them away and saying, "ok, go kill some time," and then paying people to watch them watch TV.

Ok, now I'm just in a bad mod.

My lawyer told my in NY state there are four parts to proving a DWI: proof of consumption of alcohol, operation of a motor vehicle , ... **** I forget. But it does vary widely from state to state, I think. But that's absurd.

If they want to, police have very wide latitude to arrest you.

More Minnesota state supreme court stuff:

So the court found that not only did the defendant not 'drive' nor 'intend to operate' the vehicle while drunk, she was 'in physical control' while under the influence when her designated driver left her the keys (to run the heat presumably) while he walked a half-mile to a Perkins for help. And it did not matter that the car was stuck fast in the snow and needed to be moved by a tow truck.

So yeah, just don't get in a motor vehicle while drunk. People really hate drunk drivers and seem very willing to be imo unreasonable when on juries for DWI charges.

The OP said a passerby saw him sleeping and called the cops. This could mean a lot of things such as he was either stopped at a stop sign and fell asleep, or barely pulled off the road to sleep. I don't think people are calling the cops just because someone pulled over to take a nap unless he was a traffic hazard.

You think you have far and away the highest incarceration rate in the developed world because you have so much freedom? Really?

My brother. He's got a bunch of animals at his place and they don't all get along with Gonzo, so it was kinda like we both went to jail.

Of course, it's 10 degrees now so he has to sleep inside, which means he's basically miserable anyways.

I'm staying out of the derail, but it's interesting. As to my specific situation though, I was guilty and have no issue with the passerby calling the police.

In Jay's infuriating story the victim was convicted, not just arrested.

About 10 years ago I was playing poker at the Trop in AC. Back then they had a deal where if you played 4 hours, you got a good deal on a hotel room. So I played all night and drank. I was hammered and I asked if I could check into my room early. They said to come back at 10 AM or something like that. So I went to my car in the garage to sleep it off. I slept for a few hours but it's pretty crazy I could have gotten a DUI.

If this was true, wouldn't they be arresting a lot of drunken passengers? Sounds like terrible rules, and I am as anti drunk driving as they come.

Does this "don't punish people if they stop in the middle of a bad act" thinking transfer to offenses other than drinking and driving?

Did you get to meet any famous or historical prisoners while you were in jail? My great-grandfather shared a cell with O. Henry, which was a little ironic since he apparently hated candy.

Haha .... I heard one guy in a cell next to me say to someone else, "Oh yeah, I read about you." That's about it. ... one reasons prisoners like the newspaper is they get to read about themselves.

No, every state is different but in NJ, they have to prove operation of the vehicle. There are three standard ways to prove operation. First, there could be direct evidence of operation. This will come from the observations of the cop or the witnesses who saw you drive the car. The second method is through circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence constitutes the facts and circumstances related to your situation and they create an inference that the car was operated and that you were the operator. The third way of proving operation is of course, by your own admission.

If you can't prove that the person committed the bad act I would certainly hope so.

Parked on the side of the road with the engine running, sleeping, and being drunk are good enough for me.

So the woman in Jaytee's example should go to jail for having a designated driver who got stuck in a snowbank?

Please to enlighten all the reasons USA#1 sucks and I'm ignorant.

With what was posted, I would not convict. The jury felt otherwise.

Are we going to nitpick at the edges of extremes?