Indiana Supremes Do It Again

[mrjarrell]

Apparently, your car is now a public place, according to the Indiana supreme court justices. Don't even bother with designated drivers anymore, they won't help you avoid arrest. You'll be dragged out, arrested and imprisoned.
Can't help but wonder if this will have any effect on gun laws, since your car is now a public area.

Legal Blog Watch

 

[jmiller676]

So having your guns locked in your car at work is now technically public property and therefore can be fired for having a firearm on the premises since it's is now not locked and controlled in or on the persons property? They need to stop writing and "interpreting" laws that are so jacked.

 

[jmiller676]

Also, look out 4th again. No need for a warrant now...

 

[Stschil]

Every member of the Majority Opinion in this case should be charged as well. The were obviously Intoxicated when they put forth this precedent.

Funny how they state, 'It's up to the Legislature to determine public policy', yet they have no problem legislating from the bench at the same time.

 

[eldirector]

WTF?!? Seriously?

OK, read the actual court doc. She was arrested for public intox because she was unable to drive after her friend (who was driving originally) had a suspended license and could not continue driving after a traffic stop. Therefor, she was now in a "public place" (no longer in the car, and on foot).

I see how they got from point A to point B, but COME ON! Let her call another friend or call a cab. Heck, give her a ride in your patrol car. She had NO INTENT to be intoxicated in public and was not RECKLESS.

 

[jmiller676]

"they threw me..into...pub-lic."

 

[singlestacksig]

So having your guns locked in your car at work is now technically public property and therefore can be fired for having a firearm on the premises since it's is now not locked and controlled in or on the persons property? They need to stop writing and "interpreting" laws that are so jacked.

the car is a thing, it is your thing so your gun can be locked in it.. it is also a thing that can be in a public place.. being drunk in public was the crime..

 

[jmiller676]

I'm still skeptical of the ruling..with our judicial system these days it's probably only a matter of time. Why didn't she just stay in the car or was she asked to get out of the vehicle where she was then charged with public intoxication.

 

[88GT]

I object to this justice-bashing.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"they threw me..into...pub-lic."

I wanted to be inside

 

[ATOMonkey]

Just tow me to the impound. You're not getting me out of this car.

That's the advice I give everyone. Apparently, it's not going to hold water anymore.

 

[booey50]

what can we do to overturn these morons of the supreme court??? Will writing Governer Daniels do anything???

 

[ATOMonkey]

Also, I've seen people argue that if you're drunk in a car, then you should be charged with DUI, because you "could" start the car and drive it.

Lots and lots of people advocating liberty these days.

 

[jmiller676]

If you buy a car you should be charged with wreckless homicide because you could have an accident and kill someone..the logic of people these days.

 

[96firephoenix]

OK, read the actual court doc. She was arrested for public intox because she was unable to drive after her friend (who was driving originally) had a suspended license and could not continue driving after a traffic stop. Therefor, she was now in a "public place" (no longer in the car, and on foot).

this makes a lot more sense, but the ruling of "a vehicle stopped along a highway is in a public place for purposes of the public intoxication statute" is beyond stretched from the circumstances. This ruling opens up the scenario in which they pull over your DD and arrest you for PI. And is ONLY along a highway? what about Meridian street/US-31? technically a highway (all the way through indy, I think), but is it enough of a highway for you to get arrested for PI if your DD is speeding? what about if you're DD'ing your friend's bachelor party (worst job ever) and you have 7 guys in the car... 7 counts of PI?

SCOIN

 

[insanemonkey]

It seems to me we are missing part of the story from the posted article. It looks like the problem was not that she was traveling in the car, it was that there was no one legally allowed to drive. The cops should have just let her call a cab. Maybe she refused to call a cab and insisted on walking or something. I just think there is more to this case then we have found so far.

That said, I think the court ruled incorrectly. They should have ruled that a car is private property and that she should have been charged for being outside the car not in it, if anything. Then the case should have been thrown out.

 

[Rob377]

WTF?!? Seriously?

OK, read the actual court doc. She was arrested for public intox because she was unable to drive after her friend (who was driving originally) had a suspended license and could not continue driving after a traffic stop. Therefor, she was now in a "public place" (no longer in the car, and on foot).

I see how they got from point A to point B, but COME ON! Let her call another friend or call a cab. Heck, give her a ride in your patrol car. She had NO INTENT to be intoxicated in public and was not RECKLESS.

That wasn't the rationale in the decision. They relied on a nearly 50 year old case saying that inside your car was a "public place" for purposes of the statute.

Established
precedent has long recognized that a person in a vehicle stopped along a highway is in a public
place for purposes of the public intoxication statute. Miles v. State, 247 Ind. 423, 425, 216
N.E.2d 847, 849 (1966).

Miles was a case where trucker, driving alone, was passed out over the steering wheel of his running truck.

Taking the situation as shown by the record, the appellant was in the cab of a truck with the window open, approximately three or four feet from the traveled portion of a busy highway. Under these circumstances, we hold that the appellant was in a public place within the meaning of the statute involved.

Under this precedent and its extension of Miles, whether the friend has a valid license or not is irrelevant.

(As an aside, Intent is irrelevant as well. PI is a strict liability offense. Intentionally, Knowingly, recklessly, doesn't matter. See in Ind. Code 35-41-2-2 andStreet v. State, 911 N.E.2d 654.)

Then, these justices don't see the irony when they write "The judicial function is to apply the laws as enacted by the legislature." and then immediately start applying a NON-LEGISLATIVE definition of "public place" as decided by a decades old NON-LEGISLATIVE piece of case law.

What a stupid, stupid, stupid decision here.

I'd like to see the legislature step in and correct this, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[level.eleven]

Hey, this one starts out hornadylnl's favorite way. License plate light!

 

[Westside]

This is Great news!!!!!

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Just another reason that the first among Apple, Android, or Windows Phone 7 to create a fully encrypted (at the hardware level) phone, will be the one to get my business. In the meantime, I'll be keeping my phone in my pocket while out & about.