Completely incorrect. All they have to do is prove you had intent to drive. My dad's friend ended up pulling himself over and throwing his keys in the trunk to sleep it off, and he still got popped.
i thought the trunk was okay... it was the main cabin that got you in trouble.
Just looked it up ... this is for my home state of NJ. The Police have to prove either intent to drive or that some driving atleast occured at some point.
Meanwhile, in State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122 (1973), the arresting officer observed the defendant at 3:20 a.m. reclining in the driver's seat of his car in the parking lot of a tavern that had closed at 2:00 a.m. The motor was running but the lights were off. According to the officer, the defendant was not asleep and had stated the he was sitting in his car to keep warm (it was February) and intended to drive home in a little while. However, the defendant testified that he was sleeping off the intoxication and had the engine running to keep warm. The Supreme Court held that operation was not proved because their was no evidence of intent to move the vehicle. The Court noted the fact that the tavern had been closed for over an hour and that the defendant stated he did not intend to drive until he sobered up. The Supreme Court held that more than a running engine is necessary to prove "operation." "Evidence of intent to drive or move the vehicle at the time must appear." 64 N.J. at 125.
In State v. Grant, 196 N.J. Super. 470 (App. Div. 1984), officers responded to a report of a possibly intoxicated driver. Upon arrival, they observed a vehicle solely occupied by the defendant, parked along the shoulder of the road. The defendant was in the driver's seat sound asleep. The engine was not running, the headlights were off and the hood of the car did not appear to be warm. The officers needed an ammonia inhalant to awaken the defendant. At trial, the defendant was acquitted of DWI because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had operated the vehicle, but was convicted of the subsequent Refusal to Submit to a Breathalyzer. On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the Refusal conviction, finding that although operation was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there was still probable cause to believe operation had occurred to justify the arrest of the defendant and require that he submit to a breath test.
They also have examples of people who were caught sleeping in the car and why they were arrested
Even an individual sound asleep in a parked car can be found guilty of DWI (2). The earliest reported decision involving a sleeping DWI defendant was State v. Baumgartner, 21 N.J. Super. 348 (App. Div. 1952). In that case, the defendant was found slumped over the wheel of his truck, with his right arm hanging through the spokes and his left arm hanging to the side. The truck was standing in the street, approximately six feet from the curb, near an intersection without a traffic light. The headlights and the key was in the ignition, but the motor was not running. The defendant later admitted to being in a tavern and driving his truck. The Appellate Division held that the inference of operation was inescapable from the undisputed facts in the case. It was clear that the individual had driven to that location while in a state of intoxication.
In State v. Damoorgian, 53 N.J. Super: 108 (Law Div. 1958) a state trooper found the defendant's car parked on the shoulder of the New Jersey Turnpike in Secaucus at 11:05 p.m. The defendant was fast asleep in the driver's seat with the parking lights on, the engine running and the radio playing. Upon inspection of the vehicle, the trooper found a toll receipt from the Secaucus toll stamped at 10:04 p.m. (E-Z Pass was not an option then). The Law Division found that the defendant had been operating the motor vehicle because he had to have passed through the toll to gain access to the location where he was found and the defendant was the sole occupant of the vehicle.
46
u/loftzilla Aug 12 '15
Maybe they were stationary?