[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.