Man loses fight for right to sleep in car

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
TexasStooge
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 38127
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:22 pm
Location: Irving (Dallas County), TX
Contact:

Man loses fight for right to sleep in car

#1 Postby TexasStooge » Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:47 am

CLAREMONT, N.H. — You have the constitutional right to remain silent, as well as the right to an attorney. You do not, however, have the right to sleep off a night of drinking in your idling car.

That was the ruling handed down last week by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the unusual case of William Winstead.

Winstead's eventual trip to the top of the New Hampshire court system began in April 2002 in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

After drinking a six-pack of Bacardi Silvers, Winstead, 25, decided to sleep in his car until he sobered up enough to drive. Winstead left his Saturn's engine running to keep warm, but had the car in neutral and the emergency brake on.

He slept soundly until police officer Shawn Hallock roused him at about 3 a.m. on April 6, 2002. Winstead admitted drinking but said he planned to sleep until he sobered up. He passed two Breathalyzer tests.

Hallock also asked Winstead to take a blood test to check for drug use, Winstead said. Though the test showed he was not on drugs, it did reportedly confirm that he was still legally drunk.

Winstead was charged with, and later convicted of, drinking and driving, even though the car was in neutral. He challenged the conviction on several grounds, including the fact that he wasn't driving.

The high court upheld the conviction, agreeing with prosecutors that Winstead met the New Hampshire standard for being in actual physical control of his car, even though he was asleep.
0 likes   
Weather Enthusiast since 1991.
- Facebook
- Twitter

User avatar
JCT777
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 9:21 am
Location: Spring Mount, PA
Contact:

#2 Postby JCT777 » Fri Nov 21, 2003 9:52 am

I wonder if the situation would have been different had the car been in 'Park' instead of 'Neutral'.
0 likes   

User avatar
blizzard
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2527
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:04 am
Location: Near the Shores of Gitche Gumme

#3 Postby blizzard » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:18 pm

Nope, if the keys are even in the ignition, with the car turned off, it can carry the same charge as if he were actually driving the car.
0 likes   

User avatar
CaptinCrunch
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 8731
Age: 57
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:33 pm
Location: Kennedale, TX (Tarrant Co.)

#4 Postby CaptinCrunch » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:29 pm

Another STUPID ruling by a state supreme court.
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#5 Postby GalvestonDuck » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:41 pm

Like the article says, he was under the influence while in control of a motor vehicle.
0 likes   

Josephine96

#6 Postby Josephine96 » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:54 pm

LOL.. I love hearing the stories on here.. They're good when you need a laugh
0 likes   

ColdFront77

#7 Postby ColdFront77 » Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:13 am

I wouldn't call this particular issue funny, though.
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests