[Scott Roberts]

I would say without some sort of consequences, he may do it again.
I got a dui years ago and had it dropped to a reckless due to the Trooper going to bat for me..
However! I had to go through all the stuff one does when convicted of a dui as part of the deal..
I won't so much as use mouthwash and drive a car now... the pain of the consequences cured me of ever doing that again.
It should be enough to think I could have killed someone else... but thought I was invincible.. consequences change behavior in my opinion.

[dataway]

Originally Posted by Scott Roberts

I would say without some sort of consequences, he may do it again.
I got a dui years ago and had it dropped to a reckless due to the Trooper going to bat for me..
However! I had to go through all the stuff one does when convicted of a dui as part of the deal..
I won't so much as use mouthwash and drive a car now... the pain of the consequences cured me of ever doing that again.
It should be enough to think I could have killed someone else... but thought I was invincible.. consequences change behavior in my opinion.

Same here, in my case, rolled six inches over the white line at a stop sign. Years ago, will never repeat that offence. I have some friends pretty high up in NY state law enforcement ... barracks that the troopers took me to was commanded by a very good friend .. but it was 30 min before he came to work. Called me later that day, sorry that he couldn't do anything .. mentioned he had two troopers that month he let go because of DUIs.

Strangest thing, called my attorney, went to court a few days later, paid the fine $540, $700 to my attorney, did the classes etc. I had an absolutely pristine driving record for 20 years. My insurance never went up, in fact it went down the next year, my motorcycle insurance never went up, my wife insured with the same company, same household .. never went up. Never heard a word from the insurance companies. I think some phone calls were exchanged between some friends at the Capital ... and some how it got erased from the database the DMV allows the insurance companies to access. And not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, I've never asked for a transcript of my driving record, or pressed any of my friends about it.

In NY ... there is ZERO being let go on a DUI, numerous organizations always watching for that to happen. If you are in your vehicle drunk, back seat, unconscious, with the keys locked in the trunk .... they will still write you a DUI ... in NY they do not have to SEE you driving. If you are IN the car, and the keys are in the car (in the trunk counts evidently) ... and you are drunk (not on your own property) they will give you a DUI.

Although ... rural situation, Deputy Sheriff pulls you over ... anything is possible, county Sheriffs have huge sway over how they run their departments.

[Sirrotica]

In PA, you only have to have the keys in the ignition lock, that is constituted as intent to drive.

Two guys came out of a bar at closing time, neither one is fit to drive, and they realize that. It was winter time and they were intermittently starting the car in the parking lot to keep warm, while sleeping it off. Cop sees a lone car in the lot, and investigates. The car was not running, but the keys were still in the ignition. He cites the guy sitting in the front seat for DUI because the keys show intent to drive.

A guy I used to work with has a brother that is a state cop, so I asked him about that, he says that it is correct, and it probably would stick in court. It sounded far fetched to me, so that is the reason I asked my buddy's brother. So in PA you can be on private property, not actually operating the car, and still get pinched if the key is in the ignition, it doesn't seem right, but he said it was......

[Bermuda Blue]

I want to hear more about that cat

[njsteve]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

In PA, you only have to have the keys in the ignition lock, that is constituted as intent to drive.

Two guys came out of a bar at closing time, neither one is fit to drive, and they realize that. It was winter time and they were intermittently starting the car in the parking lot to keep warm, while sleeping it off. Cop sees a lone car in the lot, and investigates. The car was not running, but the keys were still in the ignition. He cites the guy sitting in the front seat for DUI because the keys show intent to drive.

A guy I used to work with has a brother that is a state cop, so I asked him about that, he says that it is correct, and it probably would stick in court. It sounded far fetched to me, so that is the reason I asked my buddy's brother. So in PA you can be on private property, not actually operating the car, and still get pinched if the key is in the ignition, it doesn't seem right, but he said it was......

I worked down in Florida at the time I was a prosecutor. (25 years ago) The local defense attorneys knew that any time a case came up like that where the guy obviously did the right thing by sleeping in off in his car, that they would always take those to trial. They knew that 1) no jury would ever convict in that circumstance because the guy was doing what everyone says they should do: park it and sleep it off or get a cab, and 2) the state would drop the case if it actually got set for a trial date and offer the guy a $50 disorderly conduct citation for disturbing the peace (nonspecific incident based on loud snoring/stereo/open container).

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by njsteve

I worked down in Florida at the time I was a prosecutor. (25 years ago) The local defense attorneys knew that any time a case came up like that where the guy obviously did the right thing by sleeping in off in his car, that they would always take those to trial. They knew that 1) no jury would ever convict in that circumstance because the guy was doing what everyone says they should do: park it and sleep it off or get a cab, and 2) the state would drop the case if it actually got set for a trial date and offer the guy a $50 disorderly conduct citation for disturbing the peace (nonspecific incident based on loud snoring/stereo/open container).

So then why is that dumb law punishing someone for doing the correct thing? I found it ironic that, as you said, they did the right thing, and still got cited.

The guy I talked to, (state cop), is by the book, and straight as an arrow, when it came to being a cop, and enforcing the law. He's not someone that will "cut someone a break" typically. He probably would not have cut the guy in this OPs incident, a break, he would have been in jail.

Is there a reason there is an the "intent to drive" clause for some other reason? It surely doesn't seem well intentioned, in the case I cited, and actually seems counterproductive.