Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 25, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a person does not lose their status as a "passenger" in a motor vehicle unless they take some action that makes the motor vehicle a source of danger to themselves or others.

Jennifer Leu was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by her husband. A police officer stopped the pickup and suspected Leu's husband was impaired. After conducting field sobriety tests on Leu’s husband, the officer arrested him and directed Leu to remain in the truck. The truck’s engine remained running. At some point, Leu got out of the passenger compartment of the truck and moved to the driver’s seat. However, she did not close the driver’s door. Instead, Leu sat sideways on the driver’s seat, with her feet hanging out of the truck. When the officer observed Leu in that position, she was on her cell phone and explained to the officer that she was requesting a ride home from the scene. Leu exited the truck. Then, she reached inside the truck, switched off the ignition, and put the keys in her pocket. As the officer placed Leu under arrest, a third party arrived to take possession of the truck.

Jennifer Leu's drivers license was revoked for being in physical control of a motor vehicle.  Ms. Leu filed a challenge to the revocation but the district court upheld the revocation. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rightly reversed the district court, stating:

"The term “physical control” is more comprehensive than the terms “drive” and “operate.” State v. Harris, 202N.W.2d 878, 881 (Minn. 1972). The term “physical control” should be given “the broadest possible effect” to deter inebriated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Juncewski, 308N.W.2d 316, 319 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted). Generally, physical control is meant to cover situations in which “an inebriated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.” State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn 1992)."

"However, [i]t is, of course, no crime for an intoxicated person to be in a motor vehicle as a passenger. A passenger, by definition, is someone who is merely along for the ride. When, however, only one person is found in or about a stopped car, the question arises whether that person is a passenger or a person in physical control of the motor vehicle. Mere presence in or about the vehicle is not enough for physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative."

"Thus, the supreme court has articulated a different physical-control standard for a “known passenger” in Shane. 587 N.W.2d at 639. Under that standard: [F]or a police officer to have probable cause to believe a known passenger is in physical control of a motor vehicle, the officer must have reason to believe that the passenger has or is about to take some action that makes the motor vehicle a source of danger to themselves, to others, or to property."

***

"After the driver in Shane was removed from the vehicle, Shane asked the police officer if he could drive the vehicle home. Id. at 640. Later, Shane touched the vehicle’s gas pedal from his position in the passenger seat while the vehicle was running, causing the engine to “rev up” and the exhaust from the vehicle to increase. Id. at 642. Yet, the supreme court concluded that the officers “had no reason to believe that Shane had or was about to take some action that would make the [vehicle] a source of danger,” stating, “[t]he mere act of a known passenger leaning over and touching a vehicle’s gas pedal, without more, is not an action that makes the vehicle a source of danger.” Id. The Shane court said that the circumstances were inadequate to establish “physical control” because Shane did not put himself in a position to move the vehicle. Id. The supreme court noted that Shane did not cause the vehicle to move, did not move to the driver’s seat, did not touch the steering wheel, and did not put the vehicle into gear. Id. Nor was there any evidence that Shane attempted to do those things. Id. Thus, the officers did not have probable cause to believe that Shane was in physical control of the vehicle. Id."

"When compared to the circumstances in Shane, the circumstances here provide even less reason to believe that Leu had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a danger to herself, others, or property. Like Shane, Leu did not put herself in a position to move the truck, and she did not cause the truck to move. Although Leu moved to the driver’s seat, she did not sit in a position conducive to driving. Instead, she sat facing out the driver’s door with her feet outside of the truck, where they were not in contact with the truck’s gas and brake pedals. Unlike Shane, Leu did not manipulate the gas pedal. Leu operated only the truck’s ignition switch, and she did so only to turn off the truck’s engine. Next, she removed the keys from the truck. Those acts are inconsistent with an attempt to move the truck. Finally, unlike Shane, Leu did not ask for permission to drive the truck. Instead, she attempted to make arrangements for a ride home, and a third party arrived and took custody of the truck before the police officer cleared the scene. When considered in their totality, these circumstances do not suggest that Leu had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a danger to herself, others, or property."

***

"Because Leu was a known passenger and the totality of the circumstances do not indicate that she had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a source of danger, there was no probable cause to believe that she was in physical control of the truck. We therefore reverse the commissioner’s revocation of Leu’s license to drive."

Moral Of The Story: Don't ride with a drunk driver.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.

Minnesota DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Maas v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 20, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that "physical control" of a motor vehicle is broader than "driving" or "operating" same.

In Maas, a Faribault County deputy observed a 2007 Dodge Durango (the Durango) in a snow-filled ditch. Upon approaching the Durango, the deputy noticed it was unoccupied, locked, and turned off. Through the Durango’s window, the deputy observed a plastic cup in the center console containing an amber liquid. The deputy recognized the plastic cup as a type bars and other establishments use to sell alcohol. The deputy left the Durango and did not interact with anyone.

Approximately two hours later, the deputy passed the Durango again. This time, the deputy noticed a man, later identified as the Petitioner, next to the Durango. The deputy observed appellant on the passenger side attempting to dig the Durango’s wheels out of the snow. Maas waved to the deputy seeking assistance. The deputy activated the emergency lights and parked near the Durango. The deputy did not observe anyone other than Petitioner within or near the Durango. At this time, the Durango was running with the keys in the ignition. Mr. Maas admitted he drove the Durango into the ditch.The deputy noticed the Petitioner exhibit indicia of intoxication and arrested Mr. Maas after he failed field tests and refused to submit to a preliminary breath test.

Mr. Maas filed a challenge to the revocation of his driver's license asserting the deputy did not have probable cause to believe Petitioner was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. The district court sustained the revocation finding probable cause, stating (1) “[appellant]’s vehicle was running, and he was in the process of trying to dig it out of the snow”; (2) “by [appellant]’s own admission, he had been consuming alcohol”; (3) appellant showed “physical symptoms of intoxication (e.g., watery and bloodshot eyes, slurring of speech and odor of alcohol)”; (4) the deputy observed a “plastic cup filled with amber liquid in the Durango’s center console”; and (5) the deputy observed “numerous empty beer cans littering the trunk of the Durango.” 

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:

"We give the term “physical control . . . the broadest possible effect” to “enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes” and to “deter individuals who have been drinking from getting into their vehicles, except as passengers.” Shane, 587 N.W.2d at 641 (quotations omitted). Thus, “physical control” encompasses more than “drive” or “operate.” State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 836 (Minn. 1992). But “mere presence in or about the vehicle is insufficient [to show] physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative.” Id. at 838. Courts consider several factors when determining whether a driver exercised physical control over a vehicle, including: “the person’s location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle; who owned the vehicle; and the vehicle’s operability.” State v. Fleck, 111 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010)."

"Appellant asserts that he did not exercise physical control because the deputy never observed appellant seated in the Durango. But a person does not need to be seated behind the steering wheel to exercise physical control over the vehicle. For example, in State v. Woodward, 408 N.W.2d 927, 927-28 (Minn. App. 1987), we concluded a motorist standing alone outside the rear of her vehicle was in “physical control” when the engine was running with the key in the ignition. We noted that “a person is in physical control of a vehicle if [they have] the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle and [they are] in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.” Id. (quoting State v. Duemke, 352 N.W.2d 427, 429-30 (Minn. App. 1984))."

"Appellant also argues that he did not exercise physical control because the Durango was inoperable. But we have repeatedly held that a person may exercise “physical control” over a temporarily disabled vehicle. Flamang v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 516 N.W.2d 577, 580-81 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. July 27, 1994); see also Woodward, 408 N.W.2d at 927-28 (concluding appellant exercised physical control even though the vehicle had a flat tire); Abeln v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 413 N.W.2d 546, 547-48 (Minn. App. 1987) (concluding appellant exercised physical control over a vehicle with a dead battery); Duemke, 352 N.W.2d at 429, 432 (concluding the sleeping appellant stuck in a snow-filled ditch exercised physical control over the vehicle). “Inoperability or, more precisely, the nature and duration of any inoperability, is simply a factor or circumstance to be evaluated with all the surrounding facts and circumstances ... in determining whether the situation gives rise to physical control.” Starfield, 481 N.W.2dat 839."

***

"The deputy found appellant, by himself, digging the Durango out of the snow. When the deputy arrived, the Durango was running with the keys in the ignition. Additionally, appellant admitted the Durango belonged to him and that he drove the Durango into the snow-filled ditch. In this case, the “overall situation” supports the district court’s decision that appellant exercised physical control over the Durango. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d at 838; Fleck, 111 N.W.2d at 236."

Moral Of The Story:    If you have been drinking, don't get near any of your vehicles except as a passenger.

Minneapolis DWI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Beckman (decided April 27, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition (once again) that an inoperable vehicle does not preclude a guilty verdict for being in "physical control" while drunk.

In Beckman, the Defendant was charged with two counts of driving while impaired and two counts of carrying a pistol while under the influence of alcohol.  The case went to trial where Mr. Beckman represented himself.  

State Trooper Aaron Myren testified at trial that when he responded to a report of a stalled vehicle, he found a Ford Explorer with its only occupant, Beckman, slumped over in the driver’s seat. Trooper Myren knocked on the window. Beckman awoke, sat up, grasped the key in the ignition, turned the key to “initiate the power to the first stage of the ignition,” and slightly lowered his window.  The trooper “was overwhelmed with a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage.” Beckman told the trooper that he had been traveling from North Dakota toward Fergus Falls but that he could not remember where he was. Trooper Myren administered field sobriety tests, during which Beckman stumbled and struggled to follow directions. The trooper told Beckman that he was under arrest, and Beckman disclosed that he had one firearm on his person and one inside the car. Trooper Myren seized a semiautomatic handgun from Beckman’s jacket and another from a vest in the Explorer’s second row of seats. Then he took Beckman to the jail, read him the implied-consent advisory, and at 9:35 a.m., administered a breath test that revealed Beckman’s alcohol concentration of 0.08.

Beckman told the jury that he was driving home to Fergus Falls and ran out of gas. Beckman claimed that after running out of gas, he took two small bottles of whiskey out of his guitar case and drank them to "stay warm" on the inside.  The jury did not buy his story and found him guilty of DWI and drunk possession of a firearm.

On appeal, Mr. Beckman claimed (among other things) that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of the DWI charge.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed, stating:

"Beckman’s physical-control argument is unavailing. “[A] person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle.” State v. Fleck, 111 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010). Prohibiting intoxicated persons from exercising “physical control” of a car curbs situations where an intoxicated person might take some action to render a parked car a dangerous instrument. State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn. 1992)."

"The jury heard evidence that Beckman was seated inside his car on the highway after having driven from Fargo to where he had stopped near Fergus Falls. It also heard evidence that he sought assistance after having run out of gas both by walking to get help and by trying to flag down a passing car. Even if the jury credited his claim that he consumed whiskey while walking after the car ran out of gas (suggesting that he became intoxicated only after he was no longer actually driving), the evidence established that he was intoxicated from the time he got back into the car through the time the trooper awakened him. Given the possibility that someone might stop and help him refuel the car, he fits that category of drivers targeted by the “physical control” prohibition."

Moral Of The Story:  Never, ever enter a motor vehicle while drunk UNLESS you are a passenger.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.

Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Puro v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided July 5, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which contains a good discussion of "physical control".

In Puro, the Appellant went to a restaurant and began consuming alcohol.  Around 4:00 p.m., the bartender asked Mr. Puro to leave because he was getting rowdy from having had too much to drink.  Mr. Puro left the restaurant and made his way to his wife's Subaru which was parked in the restaurant's parking lot.  Mr. Puro fell asleep in the car and was subsequently discovered by the police.

The officer approached the Subaru and tapped on the window to try to wake up Mr. Puro who was sitting in the driver's seat but the engine was not running.  Mr. Puro appeared startled and subsequently opened the car door to speak to the officer.  The keys to the vehicle were located on the floor beneath the feet of Mr. Puro.

Mr. Puro was arrested for DWI and he challenged the revocation of his driver's license arguing that the police did not have probable cause to believe he was "in physical control" of a motor vehicle.  The district court concluded that the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Puro was in physical control and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, stating:

"Under Minnesota's implied-consent law, the state may revoke a person's license if he is in physical control of a vehicle in order to "deter intoxicated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers and to act as a preventive measure to enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes." State v. Fleck, 111 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). The term "in physical control" includes "when an intoxicated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property." Id. (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted). A person is in physical control of a vehicle if the person has the means to initiate any movement and is close to the operating controls of the vehicle."

"But a person is not in physical control when the person has 'relinquished control of the vehicle to a designated driver."'Id. And presence in the vehicle by itself is not enough to show physical control. Id. This court examines the overall situation to make the determination, which includes the examination of a number of factors "including: the person's location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle; who owned the vehicle; and the vehicle's operability." Id. Whether a person intends to drive is not part of the analysis in determining if the person was in physical control."

"Here, the officer found Puro alone, intoxicated, and asleep or passed out in the legally parked and operable Subaru. Puro, like Fleck, was in the driver's seat. The keys, which were on the floor between his feet, were readily accessible to him. He could have picked up the keys, started the vehicle, and tried to drive home." Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that Mr. Puro was in physical control of a motor vehicle.

Moral Of The Story: If you have been drinking, do not get into a car except as a passenger!!

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case of the Week is the unpublished Court of Appeals decision of  State v. Butcher, (decided August 17, 2011) which stands for the proposition that if you have eleven prior DWI convictions it might be a good idea to never come near the wheel of an automobile!

 In  Butcher, a Park Rapids police officer was on routine patrol shortly before midnight when he noticed a vehicle parked in a commercial area with its lights on.  As he approached the vehicle, the officer noticed Mr. Butcher get into the driver's seat of the car.  The officer saw the vehicle's lights turn off but was unable to recall whether the vehicle's engine was running.  The officer observed the keys in the ignition and that there was a female passenger in the front seat.

Mr. Butcher was drunk and was subsequently convicted of Felony DWI and was sentenced to prison for 79 months.  On appeal, Butcher argued that he could not be convicted of DWI because the state did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish that he drove, operated or was in physical control of a motor vehicle under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (1), (5).  Butcher claimed on appeal that the circumstantial evidence equally supported the conclusion that the female passenger had been driving the vehicle before it came to a stop along the road where the officer noticed it.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals had little problem dismissing Butcher's claim noting, "In this case the undisputed direct evidence shows that Butcher was in physical control of the vehicle as he sat behind the wheel of the vehicle with the key in the ignition, and this evidence is sufficient to sustain his DWI convictions. See, State v. Fleck, 777 N.W.2d 233, 235 (Minn. 2010) (holding that evidence of a person sleeping behind the wheel of his vehicle with the keys in the center console of the vehicle demonstrates physical control of the vehicle sufficient to sustain a conviction of DWI).

"The term 'physical control' in Minnesota's DWI laws is meant to cover situations when an intoxicated person 'is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property'. State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn. 1992).  Plainly, Butcher's position behind the wheel of the vehicle along with the fact that the key was in the ignition satisfied the definition of physical control.  There is no merit to Butcher's argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was in physical control of a motor vehicle for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (1), (5).

Moral Of The Story:  Never ever get in a vehicle while drunk unless you are a passenger.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case of the Week is the published Minnesota Court of Appeals decision of State v. Brown (decided June 13, 2011), which stands for the proposition that a motorized wheelchair or handicap scooter does not constitute a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the DWI law.

For some reason, Mr. Brown decided it would be a good idea to get drunk and drive his battery-operated three-wheel Legend Pride Mobility Scooter on the sidewalks of the City of Grand Rapids.  Mr. Brown drove his scooter to a car dealership and the dealer called the police as he was obviously drunk.  Mr. Brown was subsequently charged with a DWI and the issue in the case was whether his mobility scooter constituted a "motor vehicle".

The Minnesota DWI Statute defines a "motor vehicle", in relevant part, as "every vehicle which is self-propelled", excluding "an electronic personal assistive mobility device".  A "driver" is defined as "every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle". A "vehicle" is defined as "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway".

A separate Minnesota Statute, however, defines a "pedestrian" as "any person afoot or in a wheelchair". And a "wheelchair" is defined as including "any manual or motorized wheelchair, scooter, tricycle, or similar device used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking".

After reviewing all of the statutory definitions, the Minnesota Court of Appeals correctly held that, "It is plain that for purposes of the traffic regulations, Brown's scooter is a wheelchair and is not a motor vehicle and Brown, who uses the scooter as a substitute for walking, is, while operating his scooter, a pedestrian....We conclude that Brown's operation of his scooter as a substitute for walking does not make him the driver of a motor vehicle within the meaning of (the DWI statute) and does not subject him to criminal charges for operating the scooter while impaired."

Moral Of The Story:  If you are going to get drunk, walk or take a wheelchair.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota Case of the week is the Minnesota Supreme Court case of State v. Fleck, _N.W.2d _ (Minn. 1/21/2010).

Mr. Fleck is an alcoholic who managed to rack up 4 DWI's within 10 years making him eligible for felony prosecution.  What is interesting about his current case is that while he  made no attempt to stop drinking, he still managed to get convicted even though there wasn't any proof that he was ever driving or operating the motor vehicle.  You would think that a man with his experience with the legal system would know about the "physical control"  portion of the DWI statute, but perhaps he is just a slow learner.

The facts, as noted by the Court, are: "At 11:30 p.m. on June 11, 2007, police officers responded to a call from a concerned citizen who saw a man unconscious in her apartment complex parking lot in the driver's seat of a vehicle with its door open.  The officers found Fleck asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle, which was legally parked in an assigned space at the apartment building where he lived.  After being awakened by the officers, Fleck admitted to drinking 10 to 12 beers, but denied that he had been driving the vehicle.  When asked why he was in the vehicle, Fleck initially told the officers that he had come to retrieve an item from the vehicle but later told the officers that he had come outside to sit in the vehicle.  The officers concluded that Fleck had not recently driven the vehicle because the vehicle was 'cold to the touch', the lights were not on, and it did not appear that the vehicle had been running.  However...the officers did observe a set of ignition keys in the vehicle console between the driver and passenger seats.  The officers also concluded that Fleck was intoxicated based on observing Fleck's bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, poor balance, disheveled look, and the smell of alcohol emanating from him.  Subsequent testing showed that Fleck had a blood alcohol concentration of .18" (Opinion p.1-2).

"Minnesota law provides that it is unlawful for 'any person to drive, operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle' while under the influence of alcohol or with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(1), (5).  The term 'physical control' is more comprehensive than either the term to 'drive' or to 'operate'."

In Fleck,  the Court noted that, "physical control is meant to cover situations when an intoxicated person, is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.  State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn. 1992). Thus a person is in physical control of a vehicle if he has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle, and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle. Id."


The Fleck opinion goes on to state, "the purposes underlying the offense of being in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence is to deter intoxicated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers and to act as a preventive measure to 'enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes' (citation omitted). The offense, however, is not intended to cover situations in which an intoxicated person is a passenger, having relinquished control of the vehicle to a designated driver." (emphasis added).

The Court notes that "mere presence in or about the vehicle is insufficient to show physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative." The factors to be considered in determining whether a person is in physical control of a motor vehicle include: "the person's location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle (which from the court's language above would give you a free pass), who owned the vehicle and the vehicle's operability." (Opinion p.5)

The Fleck Court then states that the "intent to operate" is not an element of the physical control DWI statute. (Opinion p.6) This statement appears to be inconsistent with the court's exemption of passengers from prosecution.  A passenger is ensconced in the vehicle and is presumably in close proximity to the controls, the keys etc.  But since a passenger, by definition, has no intent to drive the vehicle, they are exempt from prosecution even though "intent to drive or operate" is not an element of physical control.

I do not disagree that passengers should be exempt from prosecution.  After all, drunks have to get home somehow.  And if you have the foresight to take a cab or obtain a designated driver then you should not be subject to prosecution, if say, your driver stops at the local Quik Trip and leaves you in the front seat of the vehicle with the motor running while he peruses the late night delicacies available at all 24 hour markets! Why? Because you as a passenger had absolutely no intent to drive or operate the motor vehicle.

So if the "lack of intent" serves to protect the passenger, why isn't that defense available to those whose status within the vehicle is less clear.  Say perhaps Mr. Fleck, who only went to the vehicle to retrieve an item or to simply enjoy the pleasure of the vehicle's rich corinthian leather.  If the jury does not buy the defendant's story; that's fine. But the intent of the party should be a factor in the Supreme Court's analysis of the totality of the  circumstances creating "physical control".

MORAL OF THE STORY: If you are drunk, never get in a motor vehicle unless you are a passenger with proof of a designated driver.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney