Topic: Steering You Right: Care and control

[Autos_Editor]

If you're intoxicated and sitting in your car, you don't actually have to be driving to be charged.

Read More...

[tpl]

The judge made a judgement call in this case and was correct. Reasonable doubt.

However... It is quite possible to be drunk , sleep a few hours, and still be impaired.  Car seats are not comfortable to sleep in.  I bet that this guy would have woken up after a very few hours, depending on how drunk he was, and driven off in search of a Timmy's still impaired AND tired.

In fact many people driving to work on any given morning are impaired, but perhaps not drunk, from too short a time between their last drink and going to work even tho' they have slept.

[initial_D]

The guy shoulda just sleep in the back seat.

[tpl]

The guy shoulda just sleep in the back seat.

Wouldn't help.   There have been cases in the UK about that.

[OliverD]

Years ago, I used to go drinking with friends from work after our shift was done. I'd leave my car at work, and then after the bars closed, cab back to my car and sleep in it for a few hours before driving home in the morning. The key was never in the ignition, and I always slept in the passenger seat. The janitors once saw a police car come into the parking lot and the cops looked into my car. I assume they thought I was ok and left. I never had any intention of driving drunk.

I have to wonder, what happens if you do this on private property? Can you still be charged?

[nlm]

That section of the criminal code does not get communicated as much and I bet a lot of people don't know about it. Possession/easy access of the key/fob is...key  

[blur911]

I know of someone who had been drinking at a downtown bar with friends and decided to walk home as it wasn't far and he'd had enough. He grabbed his friend's keys to retrieve his jacket from their car.  While getting his jacket the cops came along and charged him with care and control while drunk. 

[nlm]

I know of someone who had been drinking at a downtown bar with friends and decided to walk home as it wasn't far and he'd had enough. He grabbed his friend's keys to retrieve his jacket from their car.  While getting his jacket the cops came along and charged him with care and control while drunk. 

At least intent could be argued but what a pain-in-the-a$$ to have to go through the process.

[OliverD]

I know of someone who had been drinking at a downtown bar with friends and decided to walk home as it wasn't far and he'd had enough. He grabbed his friend's keys to retrieve his jacket from their car.  While getting his jacket the cops came along and charged him with care and control while drunk. 

To me, that's incredibly infuriating. It's one of those laws that exists only to prevent other, more legitimate laws from being broken. The proper thing to do in this case would have been to watch your friend. If he got behind the wheel of the car and turned it on, then fine, move in and arrest him.

It reminds me of a much more minor situation I heard about happening in Nova Scotia years ago. A guy who worked in Halifax had stopped at the liquor store to buy some wine before heading home after work. He was driving an extended cab pickup truck, so he put the wine on the floor of the back seat, as most people would. On his way home, he was stopped at a police roadblock. They asked if he had alcohol in the vehicle, and explained that he had just bought some wine and it was in the back. The cops confiscated the wine and poured it out on the side of the road, because the letter of the law says that you cannot have an alcoholic beverage within reach of the driver. It's a ridiculous law, because as long as the driver is not drinking, who cares where it is. The issue at hand is drinking and driving, not where you're storing your unopened booze.

[tpl]

I can remember it being argued in Ontario that if you had a hatchback or station wagon  without a luggage cover or with the rear seats down the same could happen.   

Another theoretical one in Ontario. The law says ( said?) that you must transport your liquor from the LCBO to your residence by the shortest practical route. So what happens if you run another errand on the way.     I am sure that it must have happened to someone at some time.

[richink]

Interesting story and not all that far fetched.

The wife threw him out for what? Too much drinking? 

I worked with a guy years ago that had that little problem. Found him sleeping in the trunk of a car in the showroom one Saturday morning. Very funny.

[Jaeger]

The judge made a judgement call in this case and was correct. Reasonable doubt.

Actually, as set out in what I assume must be yet another fictional scenario, the judge got it completely wrong.  Intention to drive is not an essential element of the offence of impaired / over 80 care or control.  In fact, it is the risk of unintentionally putting the vehicle in motion while drunk and in control of the vehicle, that defines the offence.

A finding that the accused didn't intend to drive or otherwise set the vehicle in motion is no proper basis for an acquittal.  A finding that (in the totality of the circumstances) there was no risk of the vehicle being set in motion is a proper basis for an acquittal.  Here's some non-fiction on the subject:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1985/1985scr2-119/1985scr2-119.html

From the head-note, for those with short attention spans:

"The offence of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired is a separate offence from driving while impaired and may be committed whether or not the vehicle is in motion. The mens rea is the intent to assume care or control after voluntarily consuming alcohol or a drug and the actus reus is the act of assuming care or control. An absence of intent to drive does not of itself afford a defence. "

Jaeger

[AP]

Actually, as set out in what I assume must be yet another fictional scenario, the judge got it completely wrong.  Intention to drive is not an essential element of the offence of impaired / over 80 care or control.  In fact, it is the risk of unintentionally putting the vehicle in motion while drunk and in control of the vehicle, that defines the offence.

A finding that the accused didn't intend to drive or otherwise set the vehicle in motion is no proper basis for an acquittal.  A finding that (in the totality of the circumstances) there was no risk of the vehicle being set in motion is a proper basis for an acquittal.  Here's some non-fiction on the subject:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1985/1985scr2-119/1985scr2-119.html

From the head-note, for those with short attention spans:

"The offence of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired is a separate offence from driving while impaired and may be committed whether or not the vehicle is in motion. The mens rea is the intent to assume care or control after voluntarily consuming alcohol or a drug and the actus reus is the act of assuming care or control. An absence of intent to drive does not of itself afford a defence. "

Jaeger

+1.  Care and control does not require an intention to drive.  The test is satisfied even where an impaired person (with no intention to drive) sits in the driver's seat to, say, warm up.  Somewhat surprising the article glosses over this critical point.