millerboycott.com

An out-of-state driver is accused of calling 911 during a roughly 15 minute police chase and spending roughly 10 minutes with the 911 dispatcher negotiating a fee to pull over. The Brunswick County Sheriff’s Department says that a deputy sought to conduct a traffic stop around 11:25 Monday night. Authorities claim that the Myrtle Beach woman not only failed to pull over, but also called 911. During the call, authorities say that the woman said that no emergency existed and she requested a 0,000 fee to pull over.

Deputies claim that they chased the woman in her SUV for roughly 15 minutes. Authorities claim that the woman reached speeds of roughly 70 miles per hour in a 45 zone during the police chase. The chase reportedly ended when the 37-year-old woman accused of offering to pull over for a 300-grand fee reached a dead end on the road and pulled into a private driveway.

Law enforcement says that the woman was impaired during the alleged incident. Deputies say that they had to tackle the woman in the private driveway after she got out of her vehicle. The woman is accused of being less than cooperative while she was being taken into custody. Deputies say that they had to threaten to use Tasers before the woman agreed to sit upright in a police cruiser.

The 37-year-old is accused of a string of offenses in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Authorities say she is facing multiple counts, including felony fleeing to elude arrest, DWI, driving while revoked, carless and reckless driving, and driving left of center. She was booked into the Brunswick County Detention Center on a ,000 bond. Authorities say that she is also being held on an outstanding warrant from Brunswick County for failure to appear on separate DWI charges.

Source: WBTW, “Myrtle Beach woman calls 911 during chase, offers to stop for 0k, deputies say,” Rusty Ray, Dec. 11, 2012

Greenville DUI Attorney Blog | North Carolina Underage Drinking Lawyer | Pitt County First DUI Law Firm

I continue to receive queries concerning a news article I commented on a long ago, "Parking Under the Influence". And the answer is….Yes, you can be arrested in many states for "sleeping under the influence" in your parked car — on the shaky theory that you were probably driving some time earlier and were probably intoxicated at the time.

What was unusual about that Alabama story was that those asleep in their cars had admittedly never driven — but were arrested because they might.The response of MADD and government has been that this helps prevent DUI-related fatalities. As the Alabama sheriff said, "What if they woke up at 2:00am…and decided to drive?" What is frightening, of course, are the obvious ramifications: Where do we stop once we decide to punish folks for what they might do?

In any event, despite the rhetoric about preventing traffic fatalities, the real concern seems increasingly focused on punishment rather than prevention:

Question: If an individual begins driving home from a restaurant and realizes he has had too much to drink, what do we want him to do — if we are truly interested in preventing an accident?

Answer: We would like to see that person pull over and sleep it off.

Question: How do we encourage that conduct?

Answer: We don’t punish him for doing it.

Question: Then why do police continue to arrest and the courts to convict these folks for drunk driving?

There are two issues involved. First, the legal issue: Although under the influence, was the individual driving? The various states have slightly different definitions of what constitutes "driving", but they usually involve "operating" or being "in physical control" of a motor vehicle. Second, the public policy issue: Shouldn’t we encourage conduct that seeks to avoid danger to the public and/or commission of a crime?

Looking at the legal issue first, how can a person be "operating" or "in physical control" of a vehicle if he is asleep? Well, in their stampede to "get tough" on drunk drivers, many states have stretched their definitions of "driving" to the breaking point — and beyond. In State v. Lawrence, 849 S.W.2d 761, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a defendant who was asleep on the driver’s side of his parked vehicle with the keys in his pants pocket was in "physical control" within the meaning of the DUI statute — and thus guilty of drunk driving. Similarly, in State v. Peterson, 769 P.2d 1221, the Montana Supreme Court held that the defendant was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle when he was found parked off the roadway, asleep in the driver’s seat with the keys in his pocket. There are, fortunately, other courts which have held that this does not constitute driving. See, for example, State v. Bugger, 483 P.2d 404 (Utah).

Most courts do not address the second issue: legalities aside, as a public policy matter should such conduct be punished? This is possibly because judges may feel that is a matter for the legislature to address. But consider the holding of an Arizona court in reversing a DUI conviction:

The interpretation we place on the legislature’s imprecise language is compelled by our belief that it is reasonable to allow a driver, when he believes his driving is impaired, to pull completely off the highway, turn the key off and sleep until he is sober, without fear of being arrested for being in control. To hold otherwise might encourage a drunk driver, apprehensive about being arrested, to attempt to reach his destination while endangering others on the highway. Arizona v. Zavala, 666 P.2d 456.

Makes sense. Of course, angering MADD is not a good way to get reelected to the bench.
 

DUI BLOG