What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
Maybe it's like how DWI changed to DUI a while ago.
Click to expand...

In Minnesota we have both. Well...the terms are used interchangeably but one is a lesser offense than the other. [here comes my yearly dram shop information they make me test on] DUI is up to .07. (and above I believe .03) DWI is .08 and above.
 
Handyman said:
In Minnesota we have both. Well...the terms are used interchangeably but one is a lesser offense than the other. [here comes my yearly dram shop information they make me test on] DUI is up to .07. (and above I believe .03) DWI is .08 and above.
Click to expand...

I think DUIs are also given for driving while on Percocet, and things like that, around here.
 
Ah, Michigan part 2:

The city of Holland has a terrible affordable housing problem. To help combat the problem, the City is moving to allow two family housing in several neighborhoods. The rich people of the city are like "HOW DARE YOU!" This is the same city who showed up in droves to try and prevent my community from receiving fair and equal employment housing practices, so really, I am not surprised.
 
Handyman said:
In Minnesota we have both. Well...the terms are used interchangeably but one is a lesser offense than the other. [here comes my yearly dram shop information they make me test on] DUI is up to .07. (and above I believe .03) DWI is .08 and above.
Click to expand...

Oh, that may actually be it everywhere, I had no idea.
 
I believe Alaska just uses DUI and Felony DUI (above a certain threshold) because of the weeeeeeeeeeduh.
 
Handyman said:
In Minnesota we have both. Well...the terms are used interchangeably but one is a lesser offense than the other. [here comes my yearly dram shop information they make me test on] DUI is up to .07. (and above I believe .03) DWI is .08 and above.
Click to expand...

The law in Minnesota is this.

It is illegal to operate or be in control of a motor vehicle if you are:

a) under the influence of alcohol;
b) under the influence of a "controlled substance;"
c) under the influence of an "intoxicating substance" that a person knows or has reason to know has the capacity to cause impairment; or
d) under the influence due to a combination of any of the above.

You do not have to have a certain alcohol or drug concentration to be convicted of driving under the influence.

"Controlled Substances" are Schedule I-V drugs defined by Minnesota statutes.

"Intoxicating Substances" include any drug or chemical that when introduced to the body impairs the central nervous system or impairs human audio, visual or mental processes.

You can also be convicted under this impairment statute if your alcohol concentration is .08 or more, or if it is .04 or more and you happen to be operating a commercial vehicle.
 
SJHovey said:
The law in Minnesota is this.

It is illegal to operate or be in control of a motor vehicle if you are:

a) under the influence of alcohol;
b) under the influence of a "controlled substance;"
c) under the influence of an "intoxicating substance" that a person knows or has reason to know has the capacity to cause impairment; or
d) under the influence due to a combination of any of the above.

You do not have to have a certain alcohol or drug concentration to be convicted of driving under the influence.

"Controlled Substances" are Schedule I-V drugs defined by Minnesota statutes.

"Intoxicating Substances" include any drug or chemical that when introduced to the body impairs the central nervous system or impairs human audio, visual or mental processes.

You can also be convicted under this impairment statute if your alcohol concentration is .08 or more, or if it is .04 or more and you happen to be operating a commercial vehicle.
Click to expand...

Decades ago, there were interesting cases in jurisdictions with statutes similar to that regarding the "operation and control" element. Situations where drivers who were under the influence recognized it was unsafe, and decided not to drive either before or after starting the vehicle and took steps such as throwing the keys on the floor and crawling into the back seat to sleep or wait for a ride. Cops would find drivers who had pulled off the road or in a parking lot who had never caused the car to move. The natural tension in conflicting policy factors made them interesting cases. I think this was roughly during the early years of the war on drugs (before N. Reagan though, I think), when a host of automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement were created, mostly by decisional law.
 
Someone always asks about that at Dram Shop...and that is still a crime if you believe the lady from the State.
 
burd said:
Decades ago, there were interesting cases in jurisdictions with statutes similar to that regarding the "operation and control" element. Situations where drivers who were under the influence recognized it was unsafe, and decided not to drive either before or after starting the vehicle and took steps such as throwing the keys on the floor and crawling into the back seat to sleep or wait for a ride. Cops would find drivers who had pulled off the road or in a parking lot who had never caused the car to move. The natural tension in conflicting policy factors made them interesting cases. I think this was roughly during the early years of the war on drugs (before N. Reagan though, I think), when a host of automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement were created, mostly by decisional law.
Click to expand...

I know that in MN, you can be charged with DUI if you're found passed out in the seat of your car, even if you never actually drove it anywhere after drinking. The only exception I recall is when a guy had tossed his keys into his car trunk and then fell asleep in his car. That was back in the 90s or late 80s, and I don't know if that's still the case.
 
Huh that is an interesting one. The keys being in the trunk makes it harder for the driver to drive but since all cars have push button trunk release it really doesn't prevent it so I don't know. Next time I have the class (won't be til we re-open) I will ask I guess.
 
St. Clown said:
I know that in MN, you can be charged with DUI if you're found passed out in the seat of your car, even if you never actually drove it anywhere after drinking. The only exception I recall is when a guy had tossed his keys into his car trunk and then fell asleep in his car. That was back in the 90s or late 80s, and I don't know if that's still the case.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to my wife's roommate and her boyfriend when they were all in grad school at IU-Bloomington. They thought they'd be OK if they didn't put the keys in the ignition (were not showing intent to drive). Yeah, no...
 
TalonsUpPuckDown said:
Same thing happened to my wife's roommate and her boyfriend when they were all in grad school at IU-Bloomington. They thought they'd be OK if they didn't put the keys in the ignition (were not showing intent to drive). Yeah, no...
Click to expand...

As I recall in the MN case where the guy had his keys in the trunk, he wasn't convicted of DUI/DWI because he had no access to his keys at the time. Had the keys been in the backseat, he would've been in trouble, but the trunk, closed off from the rest of the vehicle, saved him. I'm thinking that since this took place so many years ago, it would've taken a great effort to start the car.
 
St. Clown said:
As I recall in the MN case where the guy had his keys in the trunk, he wasn't convicted of DUI/DWI because he had no access to his keys at the time. Had the keys been in the backseat, he would've been in trouble, but the trunk, closed off from the rest of the vehicle, saved him. I'm thinking that since this took place so many years ago, it would've taken a great effort to start the car.
Click to expand...

There were clearly enough of these stories going around that even in the early 2000s as a college kid at UND, you always left your keys outside of your car if you were going to pass out in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top