
newtch said:Also at first i pretty much had all of the paperwork and none of it was sent to the State or the court so how did they eventually get the information.
newtch said:Well, i have seen many cases where the defendant was found to be not guilty. For some odd reason i have a feeling that i should fight this. My attorney says that the trooper, since he said my foot was on the break and the ignition was on, has enough information to prove i was capable of opperating the vehicle. But since i was parked in a parking lot, the trooper never saw me physicly driving. I think that this is wrong because the state has the bourdon of proofe. What proof is there if no one saw me driving. I took the BAC and HGN test. This is my second offence. Any ideas for a defence. Any ideas for an "outside the box" defence. Thank you.
The arrrest was valid. You WERE legally in control of the car. So, at least you're going to have a much better place to sleep in your near future.newtch said:What is the name of your state? Illinois. Sleeping in a parking lot. I was leagily parked. I was not obstructing any traffic. The car was off but i was in the drivers seat. Do i maybe have a chance. The officer wrote in his sworn statement that I was sleeping so heavilly he had to work to wake me up. So can he prove i was in physical controll of the car. Was it a wrongfull stop since i was lawfully parked? Also at first i pretty much had all of the paperwork and none of it was sent to the State or the court so how did they eventually get the information.
Somehow I don't think that being passed out behind the wheel will be a good defense.newtch said:What is the name of your state? Illinois. Sleeping in a parking lot. I was leagily parked. I was not obstructing any traffic. The car was off but i was in the drivers seat. Do i maybe have a chance. The officer wrote in his sworn statement that I was sleeping so heavilly he had to work to wake me up. So can he prove i was in physical controll of the car. Was it a wrongfull stop since i was lawfully parked? Also at first i pretty much had all of the paperwork and none of it was sent to the State or the court so how did they eventually get the information.
You have stressed an important point: some drunk "driving" laws are really "being in control of a vehicle while drunk" laws.minerzlegal said:The only comment I can lend you is. 1976 I was passed out in my car with the keys in the ignition, and although I was not parked on a main highway, but on a side road, and fully off the road, I received a DUI. It was my first DUI out of 14. Need I say I do not drink anymore, but as this was my first DUI I do remember most of the details. They made the offense stick as the keys were in the ignition and car was running. I was drunk, and in control of the vehicle. The offense stuck, as the judge stated that he felt that the evidence prooved I was drunk then, and after waking up he felt I would still be over the limit, but would drive. That was a long time ago, but that may give you an idea that this is not a new way of wrongfully issuing DUI's. The judge did tell me that the next time I got drunk, and pulled off the side of the road to lock the keys in the trunk. After I had my car towed, and with the tow slip as proof I would be able to proove to him that I did not have control over the car. Not much help for you, but don't think you are the only one. Good luck.
seniorjudge said:You have stressed an important point: some drunk "driving" laws are really "being in control of a vehicle while drunk" laws.
Illinois Vehicle Code said:Sec. 11‑501. Driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or compounds or any combination thereof.
(a) A person shall not drive [highlight]or be in actual physical control of any vehicle [/highlight]within this State while: {yadda yadda yadda}
Aren't all state's laws written with control in mind?You Are Guilty said:Aren't all state's laws written with control in mind? A key in the ignition here would be plenty to satisfy the requirement. Some states I believe require the car to be running as well, so our OP is off to a great start.
No, because I haven't read any other state's law and do not intend to.You Are Guilty said:OK, I'll make it easier. Have you ever seen any state NOT use "control" language in their DUI statute? I have not (but I still haven't checked Alaska or Hawaii)