Marshawn Lynch's DUI trial set 12/27

[TobyTyler]

I can't speak for other states, but in CA driving is an element of the crime. However, it doesn't matter how far the vehicle travels. And I've seen at least one conviction for a guy pulling an emergency brake from the passenger seat.

In Arizona you get popped for being drunk and having the keys inside the car.

 

[NinerSickness]

In Arizona you get popped for being drunk and having the keys inside the car.

Wow, you actually said something informative. I think this is a sign of the apocalypse!

I've gotta go check outside for flying pigs.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

True. I also believe that just being behind the wheel under the influence without even driving the vehicle is a DUI in many states.

I believed that to be the case in California, because many people I know used to tell me that you can get a DUI while the car is off, but a quick search shows that is not the law of (at least) this state. Mercer vs DMV states driving is the key element of a DUI in California. In fact, if someone is convicted of a DUI in another state where the person was not actually driving, it cannot be used as a prior conviction if said person later gets a DUI in California.

Prior to actually looking up the law, I was of the belief that if someone is intoxicated in a car the keys must not be in the car with them.

EDIT: Damn, Crimson beat me to it! Damn yous, Crimson!

 

[Breaker99]

Wow Toby, I have to agree with all the others here. It was pretty clear you were being asked about your choice of the word "Homicide"

No, Lynch didn't kill anyone.

Yeah he just ran over a lady and left her to die in the road (probably drunk)..... and was convicted for hit and run. But he didn't kill anyone, thats whats important. Just as long as the lady he ran over and left to die, didn't die.... thats whats important.

 

[Breaker99]

Wow, you actually said something informative. I think this is a sign of the apocalypse!

I've gotta go check outside for flying pigs.

Of course, you started this thread full of misinformation about the arrest being in Washington, and then became completely confused about the "three strikes law" and actually suggested that a dui would count as a third strike if it had been in california.

just saying... glass houses.

 

[Breaker99]

I believed that to be the case in California, because many people I know used to tell me that you can get a DUI while the car is off, but a quick search shows that is not the law of (at least) this state. Mercer vs DMV states driving is the key element of a DUI in California. In fact, if someone is convicted of a DUI in another state where the person was not actually driving, it cannot be used as a prior conviction if said person later gets a DUI in California.

Prior to actually looking up the law, I was of the belief that if someone is intoxicated in a car the keys must not be in the car with them.

EDIT: Damn, Crimson beat me to it! Damn yous, Crimson!

If the keys are in the ignition you can get a dui in california. Happened to a friend that tried to sleep it off in a parking lot and decided to listen to some tunes...

 

[NinerSickness]

Of course, you started this thread full of misinformation about the arrest being in Washington, and then became completely confused about the "three strikes law" and actually suggested that a dui would count as a third strike if it had been in california.

just saying... glass houses.

I didn't start this thread with misinformation; I just said if he's suspended it'll be next year. I already acknowledged that my reply about the crime occurring in Washington was in error, but I wasn't "confused" about the three strikes issue. He didn't specify his reference to a "third strike" meant an NFL third strike rather than a California one.

But maybe I should start 50 different threads about the Seahawks and troll the NFL general board instead. That's much more informative.

 

[Pattersonca65]

If the keys are in the ignition you can get a dui in california. Happened to a friend that tried to sleep it off in a parking lot and decided to listen to some tunes...

Looked this up. There were comments from about a dozen attorneys in California. Their opinions differed somewhat but they all had some common themes about DMV convictions. In California, unlike some other states, the DA must prove you actually drove the vehicle. Simply having the keys in the vehicle is not proof in itself. The DA can try to prove DUI by circumstancial evidence. If you are parked in a parking lot, keys in the igintion, the hood is warm, no one else is around, etc. They can prove you had to drive vehicle there.

 

[HizzleRocker]

If someone is arrested for DUI and blows more than a 1.6 on the breathalyzer it is considered a felony in California. The person is still charged with the two normal DUI statutes, but also gets charged with a special circumstance DUI for being twice the limit for drunk driving. You don't hear about many felony DUIs though because usually attorneys can get the felony wiped away if the defendant pleads Guilty or No Contest.

Not true. First, I assume you mean 0.16. Also, the level of intoxication is irrelevant to whether it will be a felony or misdemeanor. If you are more than twice the legal limit - it is an aggrevated misdemeanor. Not a felony. This carries a bit stiffer punishment, etc.... But it in no way makes it a felony.

 

[HizzleRocker]

I believed that to be the case in California, because many people I know used to tell me that you can get a DUI while the car is off, but a quick search shows that is not the law of (at least) this state. Mercer vs DMV states driving is the key element of a DUI in California. In fact, if someone is convicted of a DUI in another state where the person was not actually driving, it cannot be used as a prior conviction if said person later gets a DUI in California.

Prior to actually looking up the law, I was of the belief that if someone is intoxicated in a car the keys must not be in the car with them.

EDIT: Damn, Crimson beat me to it! Damn yous, Crimson!

Also not true. Yes driving is an element of DUI. However, it is not an element of APC (actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol). If a person is behind the wheel of an operable car, with the keys in ignition or within reach -it is an APC.

This is the exact same thing as a DUI. The DUI statute even says a person shall not be "driving or in actual physical control..." It is the same statute with the same punishment - just a different factual basis.

The DMV case you cited is a civil case, not criminal (dealing with drivers license suspension). Also, that case does not say APC is an illegal charge - it just simply says if you charge DUI you must show driving. Which is correct.

 

[Breaker99]

I didn't start this thread with misinformation; I just said if he's suspended it'll be next year. I already acknowledged that my reply about the crime occurring in Washington was in error, but I wasn't "confused" about the three strikes issue. He didn't specify his reference to a "third strike" meant an NFL third strike rather than a California one.

But maybe I should start 50 different threads about the Seahawks and troll the NFL general board instead. That's much more informative.

Yeah, you are confused about the three strikes law. First of all the guy who brought up the three strikes law meant it in terms of the NFL policies and rules and that for Lynch this will be his third incident while a player. You then went on and on about the three strikes law and whether it would or wouldn't apply to Lynch based on the penal code and tried to rationalize whether this would be his third strike or not.... The three strikes law requires all "strikes" to be felonies. So regardless of whether the crime took place in Washington (who has their own three strike law), or California (which you were also confused about), it would not have been his third strike. In fact it wouldn't have even been his first strike as he does not even have a single felony on his record.

You don't know where the crime took place, whether its even a felony charge or not, or how many felonies Lynch has.... but that didn't stop you from a diatribe about the three strike aspect of this crime while simultaneously accusing another poster of not providing any valuable information.

its just the truth of what happened in this thread sickness.

 

[Breaker99]

Looked this up. There were comments from about a dozen attorneys in California. Their opinions differed somewhat but they all had some common themes about DMV convictions. In California, unlike some other states, the DA must prove you actually drove the vehicle. Simply having the keys in the vehicle is not proof in itself. The DA can try to prove DUI by circumstancial evidence. If you are parked in a parking lot, keys in the igintion, the hood is warm, no one else is around, etc. They can prove you had to drive vehicle there.

The point is.... you CAN be convicted of DUI for simply being in the car with the keys in the ignition. It happens. Whether the car is running or not, if you are sitting in the driver seat with the keys in the ignition it is pretty easy to prove.. The easier it is for the person the police seek to charge to start and drive the vehicle, the more likely a physical control charge is to stick. If you are passed out in the back seat and your keys are in bag in the back seat, then you might have an argument.... but if you can simply start the engine from where you sit and drive it without moving, you are considered "in control of the vehicle".

If you are ever in that position, put the keys under a rear floormat and sleep it off in the rear seat. You could effectively argue that you were not in control of the vehicle in that case.

 

[whysies]

If the point of making driving under the influence illegal is to stop people from driving while drunk then I think it is really fucking stupid to pop some drunk guy for sleeping in his car (absent a case where he clearly was driving and crashed and passed out behind the wheel, etc.). At that point you're losing the most socially redeeming part of the law (not have people drive while drunk) and just criminalizing good behavior or using the penalties from a DUI as a revenue generating source.

 

[darken65]

If the point of making driving under the influence illegal is to stop people from driving while drunk then I think it is really fucking stupid to pop some drunk guy for sleeping in his car (absent a case where he clearly was driving and crashed and passed out behind the wheel, etc.). At that point you're losing the most socially redeeming part of the law (not have people drive while drunk) and just criminalizing good behavior or using the penalties from a DUI as a revenue generating source.

This is true but how many people who drink and drive are going to pull over and sleep it off to avoid driving? Most do because they can't even drive and want to fall asleep. When they wake up they still might be a DUI if tested.

 

[HizzleRocker]

If the point of making driving under the influence illegal is to stop people from driving while drunk then I think it is really fucking stupid to pop some drunk guy for sleeping in his car (absent a case where he clearly was driving and crashed and passed out behind the wheel, etc.). At that point you're losing the most socially redeeming part of the law (not have people drive while drunk) and just criminalizing good behavior or using the penalties from a DUI as a revenue generating source.

Could not agree more. APC should at the very least be a lesser included offense to DUI. They should not be treTed the same.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Not true. First, I assume you mean 0.16. Also, the level of intoxication is irrelevant to whether it will be a felony or misdemeanor. If you are more than twice the legal limit - it is an aggrevated misdemeanor. Not a felony. This carries a bit stiffer punishment, etc.... But it in no way makes it a felony.

Yeah, the BAC doesn't matter in terms of felony vs. misdemeanor, though it affects sentencing rather dramatically at times. But I've seen misdemeanors with people north of 0.30. It can become a felony if the person causes injury or death.

Re: the driving element, it is required. However, "driving" is defined as exercising actual physical control over a vehicle and causing movement, though the movement may be slight. So pulling the emergency brake from the passenger's seat could apply.

You can prove driving even if no one saw driving. These types of cases are pretty typical, they're referred to as "no-drives." The textbook case is that the car is parked by the side of the highway when CHP rolls up. Person is behind the wheel, passed out or otherwise. The prosecution still has to prove driving, but it can be based on circumstantial evidence - no one else in the car, engine warm, keys in ignition, defendant's statements, etc. These cases can be really tough if there are other people in or around the car and no witness statements, though, as moving the car must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TobyTyler]

If the point of making driving under the influence illegal is to stop people from driving while drunk then I think it is really fucking stupid to pop some drunk guy for sleeping in his car (absent a case where he clearly was driving and crashed and passed out behind the wheel, etc.). At that point you're losing the most socially redeeming part of the law (not have people drive while drunk) and just criminalizing good behavior or using the penalties from a DUI as a revenue generating source.

We agree.

 

[whysies]

We agree.

Brofist on this one

 

[NinerSickness]

Yeah, you are confused about the three strikes law. First of all the guy who brought up the three strikes law meant it in terms of the NFL policies and rules and that for Lynch this will be his third incident while a player.

That's exactly what I just said. He didn't specify.

And the 3 strikes law thing is a moot point anyway because the law has been repealed.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Not true. First, I assume you mean 0.16. Also, the level of intoxication is irrelevant to whether it will be a felony or misdemeanor. If you are more than twice the legal limit - it is an aggrevated misdemeanor. Not a felony. This carries a bit stiffer punishment, etc.... But it in no way makes it a felony.

I'm going to leave it at you being wrong on this. Personal experience with someone dealing with a felony (was in the court room).


Your other post, I only did a dirty internet search, so I concede that comment.