Sleeping in the car?

[nns]

Originally Posted by skidmark

No reason that I can think of that would prevent you from sleeping in the driver's seat, at least while you were parked anyway!

Originally Posted by liu13

if intoxicated and still have keys, i think it's illegal and can be fined heavily

any confirmation?

Originally Posted by zulutango

It's called "care and control`. In short, yes. Not only fined but Criminal Code record, vehicle impound & storage charges, driving prohibition etc.

Skidmark and zulutango, at least to me, seem to contradict each other.

If you're intoxicated, and sleeping in your parked car with the keys in your possession, what are the possible consequences?

Sorry to bump this thread, but this post from Officer.com sparked my interest: http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...-for-the-night

[hchang]

^ It mentioned that the driver must show intent to drive.

If I remember Law 12 correctly, if your keys aren't in the ignition and youre intoxicated and sleeping in your car, it is not illegal to do so.

Can a police officer shine some light onto this?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by hchang

^ It mentioned that the driver must show intent to drive.

If I remember Law 12 correctly, if your keys aren't in the ignition and youre intoxicated and sleeping in your car, it is not illegal to do so.

Can a police officer shine some light onto this?

It's been discussed at great length here before.

Unfortunately the Government seems to think that if you have your car keys on your person and you are drunk, they can basically get you for DUI.

Doesn't matter if you are just getting your sleeping bag out of your car while drunk at a friend's place to crash for the night. Doesn't matter if you are just getting your iPod out of your car, you're drunk and in "care and control" of your car. Heck, you could even be getting your cell phone from it to call a taxi.

Now what the law doesn't state is the distance in meters around your car that you are in "care and control" of it.

One could argue that if I am drinking at home and my car is parked in the driveway, it is technically under my control and I should be arrested, charged, have my car towed, etc...

[ninjatune]

You don't need keys to move a vehicle. If it can be articulated that the person had the ability or means to cause the vehicle to be in motion (ie: by sitting in the driver seat), then the person could be facing consequences.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Doesn't matter if you are just getting your sleeping bag out of your car while drunk at a friend's place to crash for the night. Doesn't matter if you are just getting your iPod out of your car, you're drunk and in "care and control" of your car. Heck, you could even be getting your cell phone from it to call a taxi.

The trick is to only use the fob (if the car has one) and go in on the passenger side. This won't guarantee that you won't get a ticket, but it does make it a lot easier for the officer to believe that you are only retrieving something from the car.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by underscore

The trick is to only use the fob (if the car has one) and go in on the passenger side. This won't guarantee that you won't get a ticket, but it does make it a lot easier for the officer to believe that you are only retrieving something from the car.

Because nobody keeps the fob on the same ring as the key. And no new cars have a keyless ignition, or a one-piece fob/key

[nns]

If it's indeed true that sleeping in your car while intoxicated (with the keys on you) can lead to a criminal record, that is beyond severe. I understand a ticket, maybe, but a criminal record?

I don't think I'm alone on this.


Interesting thing is, it's been said that being sleep deprived is almost as bad or worse than driving drunk. However, it's OK to sleep in your car because you're exhausted. It's not OK to sleep in your car because there's alcohol in your system?

[socialenemy69]

Originally Posted by nns

Interesting thing is, it's been said that being sleep deprived is almost as bad or worse than driving drunk. However, it's OK to sleep in your car because you're exhausted. It's not OK to sleep in your car because there's alcohol in your system?

What they are trying to prevent is while sleeping in your vehicle you may wake up withing 5 minutes or 5 hours of falling asleep. When you wake up, you make think you have sobered up and then you will most likely drive home while still possibly being intoxicated.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by nns

If it's indeed true that sleeping in your car while intoxicated (with the keys on you) can lead to a criminal record, that is beyond severe. I understand a ticket, maybe, but a criminal record?

I don't think I'm alone on this.


Interesting thing is, it's been said that being sleep deprived is almost as bad or worse than driving drunk. However, it's OK to sleep in your car because you're exhausted. It's not OK to sleep in your car because there's alcohol in your system?

It is a ridiculously asinine and nonsensical law that quite often punishes people for doing the responsible thing (sleeping/not driving).

A few years back, a friend of mine went out to his car (while intoxicated) to fetch a sweater. He ended up getting a DUI because he sat down while digging around in the back seat looking for his sweater. He never even closed the door.

I understand the intentions of the law, and I recognize that most police officers do their best to make a reasonable assessment... but there's simply too much gray area and room for interpretation (especially when an innocent person has no recourse against a 24hr suspension).

[underscore]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Because nobody keeps the fob on the same ring as the key. And no new cars have a keyless ignition, or a one-piece fob/key

Hey I just said it would help to do it like that, it's not perfect. But to answer you, 1) take the fob off the ring, 2) great the car can be started, the steering wheel and such are still locked, 3) unlock the car from a distance/the house and put the keys back.

[nns]

Originally Posted by socialenemy69

What they are trying to prevent is while sleeping in your vehicle you may wake up withing 5 minutes or 5 hours of falling asleep. When you wake up, you make think you have sobered up and then you will most likely drive home while still possibly being intoxicated.

If they do indeed think this way, then they are on a very slippery slope. Going 'what if' all the time is not how it should be. What if the driver woke up, and decided from that very moment, he will never ever drive again? What if he woke up 10 hours later and decided he wanted to sleep another 5 hours? What if his buddy sees him and gives him a ride? What if the keys he has on him doesn't even start the car he's in?

See, the link I posted earlier mentions this:

The court used the case to outline a new standard of evidence that police and prosecutors need to show that a motorist intended to drive while intoxicated and posed a danger to themselves or the public.

The justices said courts can't speculate that a passed out motorist might awake and then drive.

Now I realize this is in the US, but the same principle should apply here. It just makes more sense.

[sho_bc]

An example that I dealt with a short while ago:

Driver passed out in the driver's seat of a car. Car was parked about 2ft from the curb, blocking someone's driveway (they're the ones that called, because they had to leave for work).

I attended with Ambulance and Fire, as the driver wasn't responding to honking of the horn or pounding on the window. We get inside the vehicle and shake the driver a bit, which wakes them up. Get the driver out of the vehicle and smell liquor on the breath. The red eyes can be explained partially by having just woken up & rubbed them to get the sleepy goop out. ASD = "FAIL" result.

We went back to the detachment where the driver provided 2 readings of 200mg% (nearly 3 times the legal limit). This was about 6am. The driver had alarms set for 7:30am in order to pick up the big boss from the airport at 8am. There is no way the driver would have been sober enough to drive at 7:30am. I'm not sure if the alarms would have woken the driver up or not, but the intent was certainly there. THAT is what the law is there for.

Now, I fully understand that isn't the case with all the drivers out there. There is new case law where we have to prove intent to put the vehicle in motion in the immediate future in order for criminal charges to be convicted.

It is in the police officer's best interest to be as diligent as possible in situations where care and control is involved, as there will be a record of police contact with that vehicle and person in care or control of the vehicle. If we let someone "get some things" from their car, leave and 30 minutes later find that car has plowed into a lamp post, another car, a pedestrian, etc, we can be in a whole world of trouble criminally, civilly and with our place of employment. That generally results in a 24hr suspension these days, if a situation like the aforementioned impaired driver isn't present and we are covered under the motor vehicle act for it.

Definition of "driver" under the motor vehicle act:
includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.

If you really need something from the car, have a buddy standing 25ft away with the remote and unlock the doors from there while you grab your stuff. If your car doesn't have a remote, you should have gotten your stuff when you first started drinking and knew you'd need it.

[Amaru]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

Now, I fully understand that isn't the case with all the drivers out there. There is new case law where we have to prove intent to put the vehicle in motion in the immediate future in order for criminal charges to be convicted.

Hadn't heart of this before, but I'm glad it's in place. That puts onus on the officer to prove the person was intending to drive while intoxicated, but it still gives them the opportunity to enforce the law in situations like the one you just mentioned (presumably a 7:30am alarm would be sufficient proof).

Originally Posted by sho_bc

Definition of "driver" under the motor vehicle act:
includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.

There is too much room for interpretation here, imo. It's just way too broad and poorly defined to be a fair and consistently applied law. I understand the purpose of it, and I support anything that prevents drunk driving... but this will end up sending the wrong message and can end up punishing responsible people who decide not to drive.

Originally Posted by sho_bc

If you really need something from the car, have a buddy standing 25ft away with the remote and unlock the doors from there while you grab your stuff. If your car doesn't have a remote, you should have gotten your stuff when you first started drinking and knew you'd need it.

That seems pretty ridiculous. Just because I've had four beers, I can't walk out onto my driveway and get my folding chair? I mean, come on. Let's use a bit of reason....

[mkchoi0801]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

We went back to the detachment where the driver provided 2 readings of 200mg% (nearly 3 times the legal limit). This was about 6am. The driver had alarms set for 7:30am in order to pick up the big boss from the airport at 8am. There is no way the driver would have been sober enough to drive at 7:30am. I'm not sure if the alarms would have woken the driver up or not, but the intent was certainly there. THAT is what the law is there for.

There is no way the driver would have been sober? Speaking from which perspective? I didn't know that police officers had magical vision that revealed someone's metabolic system. Isn't that just speculating? For all you know, he could've got up at 7:30 AM, and thought that, 'shit, i'm too drunk, i guess i'll have to risk getting fired than getting myself killed on the road'. I could write on my journal, 'im going to rape little kids', but that doesn't mean that i did. Just my thoughts....

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by mkchoi0801

There is no way the driver would have been sober? Speaking from which perspective? I didn't know that police officers had magical vision that revealed someone's metabolic system. Isn't that just speculating? For all you know, he could've got up at 7:30 AM, and thought that, 'shit, i'm too drunk, i guess i'll have to risk getting fired than getting myself killed on the road'. I could write on my journal, 'im going to rape little kids', but that doesn't mean that i did. Just my thoughts....

You don't go from 3 times the legal limit to sober in an hour and a half...

[mkchoi0801]

Just saying... You never know. Maybe he drank an hour ago and his system reduced half of the alcohol in that hour already. The 'intent' to drive can change any minute. Assuming this, assuming that blah blah blah

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by mkchoi0801

Just saying... You never know. Maybe he drank an hour ago and his system reduced half of the alcohol in that hour already. The 'intent' to drive can change any minute. Assuming this, assuming that blah blah blah

I'm the last person to think that someone should be charged with impaired driving if they're not actually driving, but I don't care when he drank - three times the legal limit will not drop down to zero in 90 minutes.

[mkchoi0801]

There ARE people with ridiculous rates of alcohol digestion. Just because 'you and me' have normal slow metabolism, it doesn't mean that they aren't one of the few. I'm not specifically talking about this case, I have no clue what the three times of legal limit is, I'm just saying, you can't really PROVE that he won't be sober until he actually isn't sober at that time.

[underscore]

It's pretty much impossible for the human body to do that...

also, the kinds of people that would think "For all you know, he could've got up at 7:30 AM, and thought that, 'shit, i'm too drunk, i guess i'll have to risk getting fired than getting myself killed on the road'" aren't the same people that would get drunk the night before they have to pick up their boss early...

[freakshow]

mkchoi0801, one day, when you graduate from school, come back and reread your posts, and you'll see how ridiculous they are.

[mkchoi0801]

I'm just trolling people that think they have the 'power'... I know it's not likely. I told you I was just saying.... 1 in 1,000,000,000 is still a probability no matter how ridiculous it is. If you fail to think that, then I don't have much to say to you.

[sebberry]

How does "Care and control" apply to an intoxicated person who is travelling with their motorhome and is staying at a campground where alcohol consumption is permitted?

Is every camper in this situation guilty of impaired driving?

[zulutango]

While it is parked in a campground and set up as a residence, it is deemed to be a residence. If the drunk begins to use it as a vehicle, he's an impaired driver...up to that point he's just a drunk in a campground and if he stays inside, behaves and on his campsite it's ok.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

While it is parked in a campground and set up as a residence, it is deemed to be a residence. If the drunk begins to use it as a vehicle, he's an impaired driver...up to that point he's just a drunk in a campground and if he stays inside, behaves and on his campsite it's ok.

Do you know off-hand which section of the MVA covers this?

[zulutango]

Liquor Act definitions..

"residence" means

(a) a building or part of it, or a trailer, camper, manufactured home, tent or vessel that is genuinely and actually occupied and used by the owner, lessee or tenant solely as a

(i) private dwelling,
(ii) private guest room in a hotel, motel, auto court, lodging house, boarding house or club, or

(iii) private summer dwelling, or a private dwelling or living place used during vacation periods or a private lodge, or

(b) a building or part of it designated by the general manager in a permit or other document as a private dwelling,

together with the land appurtenant to it that is essential or appropriate for the convenient use, occupation and enjoyment of a private dwelling or private summer dwelling;"