Indiana passenger convicted of public intoxication

[chiver78]

now here's a law that needs to be looked at a little more closely. wow....


www.indystar.com/article/20110701/LOCAL/107010338/Ruling-spurs-call-modify-public-intoxication-law?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

Intoxication conviction upheld
High court ruling involving woman who had a designated driver spurs call to modify law
Jul 1, 2011

An Indiana Supreme Court ruling has some worried that riding with a designated driver after a night of drinking could still land them in jail.

The state's highest court this week upheld a woman's public intoxication convicfor being drunk while riding as a passenger in a car.

The 4-1 ruling has one state lawmaker renewing his call for changes to the state's public intoxication law, which allows people to be arrested when they're drunk in public even if they're not hurting anyone or being disruptive.

"I don't think the court did anything wrong in its decision," said Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis. "I think it just shows that until we change the law, more innocent people are going to be made (into criminals)."

Brenda Moore was arrested in December 2008 while she was a passenger in a car on East 13th Street in Indianapolis. She had a designated driver, but a police officer stopped the car because its license plate light was out, according to the ruling. The officer then discovered that the driver didn't have a valid driver's license.

Moore admitted she had been drinking and couldn't drive, so the officer arrested her on a public intoxication charge, according to the ruling.

Moore appealed her conviction, claiming for one thing that it violated the spirit of the state's public intoxication law because she was acting responsibly and not being disruptive.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed her conviction, but the state Supreme Court upheld it in a ruling issued Tuesday.

In the ruling, four justices agreed that her conviction followed the law because she admitted to being drunk, and cars traveling on public roads are considered to be public places. They said lawmakers could clarify the intent of the statute if they want to protect those like Moore.

Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, whose office prosecuted the case, said he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision from a legal standpoint. But he, too, would support a change in the law to protect those who act responsibly.

"You need to make some accommodations for people who are trying to do the right thing," he said.

Efforts to reach Moore were unsuccessful. Ruth Johnson, an attorney with the Marion County Public Defender Agency who represented Moore, said she and her client are deciding whether to ask the court to reconsider.

Blake Facey, 34, Carmel, said he doesn't understand the court's logic. "That could pull over every single taxi in Broad Ripple," said Facey, who often visits bars in the Northside nightspot.

He hopes the ruling will inspire legislators to clarify the law's intent.

So does Young.

Young has authored proposed changes to the public intoxication law that would require people to be disruptive or dangerous, as well as drunk, before they could be arrested and charged with public intoxication.

Young, an attorney, decided to push for changes to the law after representing someone in a similar case.

His client was a passenger in a car that broke down on a rural road and tried to use a flashlight to direct other drivers away from the car. Police arrested his client, who pleaded guilty to public intoxication.

Young's proposal cleared the Senate this year but died in the House because it was lumped in with proposed sentencing reforms that were unsuccessful.

He said he plans to offer the same changes next year.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

What in the HELL is WRONG with Indiana? Police can meander into your house without a warrant and you're not allowed to resist; you can have a designated driver and STILL be convicted of public intox as a passenger? I'm staying the hell out of Indiana- it could just be worse than Illinois.

[swamp]

This shouldn't have gotten this far, the prosecutor has discretion whether or not to pursue the issue, and the prosecutor needs a lesson in discretion. Doesn't s/he have better things to do?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

Here in CA getting arrested for being drunk in public means you'll be tossed in the drunk tank a few hours. There is no going to court, no fines, etc.
I had a friend who was arrested for it while being the passenger in a car that was pulled over. The cop didn't appreciate his donut joke. But yeah, I kind of surprised at a DA who would pursue taking it to trial. Maybe someone that just needed an easy mark to the "win" column?
That being said, the cops here often use drunk in public to defuse potential domestic violence in cases where one or both parties involved are drunk. Say someone calls the cops because the neighbors are having a loud fight. The cops show up, and one or both are drunk. If the cops can coax the drunk(s) into stepping outside, it's now "public" and they can haul the drunk away for a few hours to sober up.

[chiver78]

fair enough, MDW. but in that case, the parties involved will likely kill each other w/o intervention. in the cited case, the drunk party was exercising good* judgment in finding a designated driver.

*good judgment is subjective, I absolutely agree with toughtimes here in that she should have picked someone else.

[rovo]

Jul 1, 2011 10:44:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

This shouldn't have gotten this far, the prosecutor has discretion whether or not to pursue the issue, and the prosecutor needs a lesson in discretion. Doesn't s/he have better things to do?

I disagree with Swamp on this one. No, she shouldn't have been prosecuted but the law needs to be cleaned up or else it can be selectively used whenever it is convenient to do so. IMO any law on the books should be enforced and if the law is no good, then eliminate it.

[Value Buy]

Her problem was the driver, and the car light.
"Two wrongs" do not make "one right"
I wonder if the officer asked if there was anyone she could call to pick her up? I think most officers would, under the circumstances, unless she became hostile after the "stop", or he ran a check on her, and there are a bunch of alcohol related incidents.
Designated driver commercials still run off and on in Indiana, sponsored by the beer and liquor industry, so I do not think the law is really in question.

[EVT1]

Jul 1, 2011 10:44:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

This shouldn't have gotten this far, the prosecutor has discretion whether or not to pursue the issue, and the prosecutor needs a lesson in discretion. Doesn't s/he have better things to do?

I wanted to be a prosecutor when I was in law school and the verdict was 'so you want to be an asshole'.

I have always had a problem with the 'control of the vehicle' part of the law. You know what I mean. People can do the right thing.

Hell- DUI is a steady business- and I love nothing more than raking the cops over the coals, questioning their training,etc., BUT, I am against drunk driving.

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2011 10:42:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What in the HELL is WRONG with Indiana? Police can meander into your house without a warrant and you're not allowed to resist; you can have a designated driver and STILL be convicted of public intox as a passenger? I'm staying the hell out of Indiana- it could just be worse than Illinois.

Law enforcement can enter a private residence without a warrant in Indiana? I'm never setting foot in that state, nor Illinois. My traveling dollars will be spent elsewhere.

[EVT1]

One of those times my outrage supercedes reading the facts- in my state passengers can be convicted of DUI. Ron White- I wasn't drunk in public, I was drunk in the bar until they threw me in public so arrest them.

[EVT1]

Side note: Indiana has a history of trampling the 4th amendment

[ameiko]

Just goes to show you that the federal government doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity.

What is truly scary, and no one seems to noticed it except for maybe evt1, is the concept that a car on the public road is considered public, i.e. no protection from search and seizure (I need to check out what Paul said about a cop meandering into your home).

We have become a police state and we need to either change these laws or leave to a freeer place.

[swamp]

Jul 9, 2011 7:40:06 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Just goes to show you that the federal government doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity.

What is truly scary, and no one seems to noticed it except for maybe evt1, is the concept that a car on the public road is considered public, i.e. no protection from search and seizure (I need to check out what Paul said about a cop meandering into your home).

We have become a police state and we need to either change these laws or leave to a freeer place.

There is some protection, teh police have to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (which, unfortunately, can include having a headlight out) to pull over a car. I'm the first to agree that this standard is often abused by law enforcement, but the law is designed to provide some protection.

Once the car is pulled over, the cops need probable cause to search anywhere unless consent is given. again, often abused but the law does provide some protection.

[swamp]

Jul 8, 2011 2:34:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jul 1, 2011 10:44:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

This shouldn't have gotten this far, the prosecutor has discretion whether or not to pursue the issue, and the prosecutor needs a lesson in discretion. Doesn't s/he have better things to do?

I wanted to be a prosecutor when I was in law school and the verdict was 'so you want to be an asshole'.

I have always had a problem with the 'control of the vehicle' part of the law. You know what I mean. People can do the right thing.

Hell- DUI is a steady business- and I love nothing more than raking the cops over the coals, questioning their training,etc., BUT, I am against drunk driving.

I was a prosecutor and I didn't think I was an asshole. Some of the defendants would probably disagree, but some have actually told me I had been more than fair to them.

And I agree, DWI defense pays much better than prosecution.

[swamp]

Jul 1, 2011 23:03:41 GMT -5 rovo said:

Jul 1, 2011 10:44:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

This shouldn't have gotten this far, the prosecutor has discretion whether or not to pursue the issue, and the prosecutor needs a lesson in discretion. Doesn't s/he have better things to do?

I disagree with Swamp on this one. No, she shouldn't have been prosecuted but the law needs to be cleaned up or else it can be selectively used whenever it is convenient to do so. IMO any law on the books should be enforced and if the law is no good, then eliminate it.

It should, but it seems really hard to repeal a law once it's on the books, it's like nobody wants to admit it's a mistake.

In NY, adultery is still on the books as being illegal. I've also never seen a prosecution for it. I don't think any state legislator wants to be the person who introduces the bill to make adultery legal.

[midjd]

Paul is somewhat misrepresenting the Barnes decision. It was a DV case, the batterer was attempting to bar the police from the victim's apartment, the victim said "Just let them in". The decision was that - because there are so many remedies for illegal entry under the law - the individual cannot physically resist the officers when they are attempting to enter. It's being reconsidered and will probably be construed more narrowly the second time around.

The local news did a good job getting everyone hyped up about how cops are now going to burst into your house and start shooting in the middle of the night. Not quite the case.

[swamp]

So Barnes was actually a consent case? Nice how the media completely missed that point.

[midjd]

It was obvious from nearly every story I read/heard that no one in the media had bothered to read the opinion, or even ask an attorney to summarize. And it was only like 8 pages!

Here's a link for anyone who wants to read it:

www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

[swamp]

Jul 9, 2011 21:06:24 GMT -5 midjd said:

It was obvious from nearly every story I read/heard that no one in the media had bothered to read the opinion, or even ask an attorney to summarize. And it was only like 8 pages!

Here's a link for anyone who wants to read it:

www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Because it's much more fun to scare the bejeebus out of people and tell them the cops/bogeyman are coming to get them, and they don't need a warrant.

Even if the media does read the case, most of the time, they have no idea what the decision means.