what's wrong with that? the guy was parked in a parking lot. it's not like he fell asleep with the engine running at a stop light. maybe he was sleeping it off in a safely parked space. you cant arrest a drunk guy for drunk driving just because he is asleep in a car. if you want to go that far you can just start going into bars and arresting people that are drunk if their car is parked outside and they have their keys on them.
Looks like finally a court came to its senses and decided we live in a country where its free to sleep in a car. did you know some people live in their cars?
no i don't disagree at all, i think the court made the right ruling. it's not quite as simple as what kgp says though. the court used this case to change the rules and force prosecutors to prove intent to drive, a new standard. what the OP was demonstrating is that many folks who decry "judicial activism" and say that the courts should not be in the business of making law are fully on board with "judicial activism" when they agree with the change.
i rarely agree with the General, but he is right on this one. If you are asleep in a vehicle with car off and keys not in the ignition, How is that Driving? No required element of a criminal offense thus no crime
I've actually done that before. Wasn't sober, so I slept in my car until I was. Had no clue I could get arrested for that.
Driving while intoxicated, first offense, is a Class B Misdemeanor that is defined at Texas Penal Code §49.04. That provision states that, "A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place". This definition sets forth the elements that must be proven to sustain a conviction. Those elements are: The defendant, on or about a particular date Was operating a motor vehicle In a public place (street, highway, beach, parking lot, etc) In a particular county While intoxicated The Texas legislature has specifically defined the term "intoxication", as that term is used for prosecution of DWI cases {Texas Penal Code §49.01(2)} __________________________________________________ These are the general elements anywhere. How is this an activist judge? How did he/she change the elements of the violation/crime? Just because police in the past arrested people asleep in their cars doesnt make it right. The agenda or practices of a police department do not make law, sometimes it takes someone to challenge a practice to stop it.
I'm not sure you understand what the tern activist means. If I'm reading all of this correctly, there is a standard for DWI in Texas and the written standard would NOT have allowed a drunk person sleeping in their car with the keys out of the ignition to be arrested. The activist judges are the ones that, according to you, have been giving out DWIs in these types of cases. They were activists in that they did not follow the law as written and imposed a new criteria. Apparently, this judge simply went back to the written standard. That is not activism.
Ruling that the law will be enforced as written is the opposite of activism. Activism is trying to legislate from the courtroom. I don't know what complaints who has made that were labeled as activism before, but this case does not remotely strike me as such.
I am 100% aligned with the general and kgp on this deal, which does not happen a whole lot. This is precisely how the appeals system should work. Kudos to the New Mexico Supreme Court for doing the right thing.
I could be wrong, but I thought in Texas a cop had to actually see you driving - if you hit something and were sitting on the curb when the cops arrived, and there were no witnesses to say they saw you driving, you could be charged with being drunk in public but not DUI. It's been a long time since I studied that, though, so it might have been changed.
"They changed the way the law is applied." If state/federal law makers were perfect we wouldn't need the courts looking over their shoulders. And when a state supreme court rules that law enforcement/prosecutors are improperly enforcing a particular statute that is not activism.
Activist would be overturning some law to reach a new result. All this judge did was follow existing law. That's not activism.
