Indiana Supreme Court public intoxication ruling

[spanky]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/OPINION08/107010310/A-case-drunk-while-not-driving

tl;dr: They ruled that you can still be charged for public intoxication while riding as a passenger in an automobile.

This is the same supreme court that says the 4th "does not give citizens the "right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.""

 

[RStewart]

They keep this up and they'll pass the 9th circuit as most liberal.

 

[jimdana1942]

There are some States that are part of the Union, but in name only.

 

[JR1572]

I just read the article from that website.

I agree with the ruling.

(I had another little bit written down here talking about the author's opinion being in the article. Apparently it was an editorial. I'm sorry. I still agree with the ruling.)

JR1572

 

[Tulse Luper]

The lone dissenter.

Rucker, J., dissenting.
In affirming Moore’s conviction for public intoxication the majority relies primarily on this Court’s opinion in Miles v. State, 216 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1966). In that case we declared that a person parked alongside a highway was in a public place for purposes of the public intoxication statute. Id. at 849. I would revisit Miles and declare that it was wrongly decided. Predating Miles by several decades, this Court declared in State v. Sevier, 20 N.E. 245 (Ind. 1889) that “[t]he purpose of the [public intoxication statute] is to protect the public from the annoyance and deleterious effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition.” Id. at 246-47. It is difficult to perceive how this purpose is advanced by declaring that the inside of a closed vehicle traveling along a highway is a public place. Writing for the Court of Appeals in Jones v. State, Judge Barnes points out:
It also is difficult to perceive the public policy behind criminalizing riding in (as opposed to driving) a private vehicle in a state of intoxication. In fact, perhaps the better public policy would be to encourage persons who find themselves intoxicated to ride in a vehicle to a private place without fear of being prosecuted for a crime.
881 N.E.2d 1095, 1098 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (reversing conviction for public intoxication where defendant was sitting in a vehicle parked on private property). I agree. As this Court has declared “[g]iven the strong state and national interest of keeping persons who are intoxicated from operating motor vehicles, we think it sound policy to encourage sober drivers to get behind the wheel and not let their friends drive while drunk.” Smith v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 790 N.E.2d 460, 462 (Ind. 2003). In this case Moore should not suffer a criminal penalty for taking the responsible action of allowing a sober friend to drive her car while she was too intoxicated to do so. I would reverse Moore’s conviction. Therefore I respectfully dissent.

Thanks, Justice Rucker

But hell, they are just interpreting the bad wording of laws written by half-wit, puritanical, negligent, Nazi legislators. I personally think it is they who should be tried, jailed, and forced to pay huge damages at the expense of their children and wives. Get the DA's rat ass in there as well. Too much?

 

[Hitman]

They keep this up and they'll pass the 9th circuit as most liberal.

You mean the 9th Circus Court.

 

[topgunz1]

Never happen in Louisiana.

After all, your car is an extension of your home....

Oh NO YOU DIDNT

 

[Tulse Luper]

Interesting blog on public intoxication in Indiana:

http://www.bbgibson.com/blog/2009/01/public-intoxication-laws-in-indiana-where-can-you-drink.html

 

[charlie12]

Oh NO YOU DIDNT

 

[RStewart]

You mean the 9th Circus Court.

Yeah, thanks for fixing it for me.

 

[James Cannon]

I just read the article from that website.

I agree with the ruling.

(I had another little bit written down here talking about the author's opinion being in the article. Apparently it was an editorial. I'm sorry. I still agree with the ruling.)

JR1572

Care to expand on that? Skimming the article, I could find nothing to provide exceptional circumstances, and it appears that they did -simply- rule that being a drunk passenger is enough to be put under criminal charges.

What the **** could there be that someone would agree that they committed a crime!?

 

[kz45]

get drunk, call a cab, go to jail, how cool is that only in America

 

[Pacioli]

I just read the article from that website. I agree with the ruling. JR1572

I would like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Bearco]

Here is the statute in question. Apparently, it is very popular in Indiana.

IC 7.1-5-1-3
Public intoxication prohibited
Sec. 3. It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9)

Here is a much better outline of the ruling.
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/hig...blic-intoxication-charge/PARAMS/article/26658

some of the split

The majority declined to reverse on this issue. “Whether conduct proscribed by a criminal law should be excused under certain circumstances on grounds of public policy is a matter for legislative evaluation and statutory revision if appropriate. The judicial function is to apply the laws as enacted by the legislature,” wrote Justice Brent Dickson for the majority in the decision issued June 28.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented, saying he would revisit Miles, in which the Supreme Court had held that a person parked along a highway was in a public place for purposes of the public intoxication statute, and declare it wrongly decided. In State v. Sevier, 20 N.E. 245 (Ind. 1889)

 

[Pacioli]

Here is the statute in question. Apparently, it is very popular in Indiana.

IC 7.1-5-1-3
Public intoxication prohibited
Sec. 3. It is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9)

Here is a much better outline of the ruling.
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/hig...blic-intoxication-charge/PARAMS/article/26658

some of the split

Indiana has created a catch-22 for any consumer of alcohol. The only way to avoid prosecution is to abstain. This is back door prohibition.

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

That is why I always ride in the trunk of my DD's vehicle...... I am no longer legally considered a passenger I am considered animate luggage.

 

[Kraut]

If this was law here, I'd be considered a serial offender and get multi-billed.

 

[James Cannon]

I just read the article from that website.

I agree with the ruling.

(I had another little bit written down here talking about the author's opinion being in the article. Apparently it was an editorial. I'm sorry. I still agree with the ruling.)

JR1572

No follow up explanation?