New Dumb Law in Indiana

[Randy Divine]

I was browsing a knife colletor's forum and found a link to this article. Does anyone know if it's true or just BS?

Heard of Passenger's Public Intoxication Charge?

It's Friday night and you had a couple of drinks with your friends, but now it's time to go home. You decide to catch a cab instead of driving, because that last shot went straight to your head. Plus, it is always best to grab a taxi or have a designated driver, right? Think again.
Just before the Fourth of July [2011], the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the public intoxication charge of Brenda Moore, who was a passenger in her car in 2008. Her friend, who was sober, decided to drive but did not have a driver's license. They were pulled over by an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officer because one of the lights on the license plate was not working. Moore, who was sitting in the passenger seat, admitted to the officer that she had been drinking, and she was arrested for public intoxication.
What the? Why would anyone be arrested for making a smart decision? Well, highways are considered public property so the Supreme Court ruled that a drunk passenger riding in a car on a highway can be considered intoxicated in public.
So, I guess if you are in Indiana take all the back roads and hidden alleys you can to reach your destination.

 

[halfmileharry]

"I ain't gonna tell on you, and I sure as hell ain't gonna tell on me?
Hush Up!

 

[Denny347]

Nothing new about this.

 

[GlockFox]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. We have had it beaten into our heads since we were old enough to think about drinking, "If you are going to drink have a designated driver." Now this. I think it's crap. Do you have a link to the article?

 

[Mackey]

I may be in the minority, but I don't think this is dumb. Maybe there's a reason the friends doesn't have a driver's license. I don't think it's smart for the drunk gal to be driving with an unlicensed driver.

 

[Randy Divine]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. We have had it beaten into our heads since we were old enough to think about drinking, "If you are going to drink have a designated driver." Now this. I think it's crap. Do you have a link to the article?

Here's the link A New Dumb Law in Indiana

 

[tooleman]

I was browsing a knife colletor's forum and found a link to this article. Does anyone know if it's true or just BS?

Heard of Passenger's Public Intoxication Charge?

It's Friday night and you had a couple of drinks with your friends, but now it's time to go home. You decide to catch a cab instead of driving, because that last shot went straight to your head. Plus, it is always best to grab a taxi or have a designated driver, right? Think again.
Just before the Fourth of July [2011], the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the public intoxication charge of Brenda Moore, who was a passenger in her car in 2008. Her friend, who was sober, decided to drive but did not have a driver's license. They were pulled over by an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officer because one of the lights on the license plate was not working. Moore, who was sitting in the passenger seat, admitted to the officer that she had been drinking, and she was arrested for public intoxication.
What the? Why would anyone be arrested for making a smart decision? Well, highways are considered public property so the Supreme Court ruled that a drunk passenger riding in a car on a highway can be considered intoxicated in public.
So, I guess if you are in Indiana take all the back roads and hidden alleys you can to reach your destination.

The story I heard about this was the driver was arrested for driving without a licenses and that left the drunk passenger on the side of the road. The police ask her if she had another way home and she didn't, so that left her on the side of the road aka drunk in public. That was the story I heard just another point of veiw

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's not new. It has always been this way.

This summer the Indiana Supreme Court overruled a Court of Appeals decision that found that PI did not apply to passengers. The Supreme Court held that because of the statutory langague the Court of Appeals was incorrect.

So, I guess if you are in Indiana take all the back roads and hidden alleys you can to reach your destination.

You would still be in a public place or place of public resort and face Operating While Intoxicated as well as PI if driving.

One would need an legislative remedy for this statute not to apply to passengers.

Note: it is usually easier to talk the Prosecuting Attorney out of pursuing criminal charges for the passenger of a cab or private car than stumbling home drunk however one can still be prosecuted for being a passenger in the car.

To avoid this, do not be out in public while intoxicated.

 

[cobber]

Here's the link A New Dumb Law in Indiana

Please correct your thread title. The law is the same it's always been.

You can thank the Indiana Supreme Court for the dumbness, if dumbness there be. It's their decision.

The PI law hasn't changed at all. The application of the law may have.

To avoid this, do not be out in public while intoxicated.

Perhaps too obvious?

 

[Ogre]

That would be a jerk move to cite a passenger for PI...

 

[GBuck]

I agree that it is a jerk move, but it is well within the law, and not a new law. I'm sure the officer could have offered to call a cab for the woman, or even let her call a different friend to come drive her. Also, the lady could have been acting like a total horses ass, and that can have a lot to do with the outcome. Denny, was it you that hooked her?


Clearly the most important thing to take away from this article, is don't ever ride in a car where there are any lights out. That's how a lot of the big boys get busted, so it makes sense that you should avoid it too.

 

[42769vette]

i dont have such a problem with the driver being arrested. she knew she wasn't allowed to drive and did. the pasenger imo should not have been arrested. she was making a wise decision by not getting behind the wheel

 

[halfmileharry]

Though illegal, I'd rather see a competent unlicensed driver on the road than a licensed driver legally drunk.
Two rights don't make a wrong.

 

[Leo]

In 1995, right in Lafayette Indiana, I had a friend get a DWI sitting in a truck listening to the radio. He admittedly had too much to drink, so he figured he wouldn take a nap in the bar parking lot and make sure not to drive under the influence. The cop woke him up and arrested him for drunk driving, even though the vehicle had never left the parking stall. I thought that was pretty bad then. With the economy getting tight, LEO's have a lot more pressure to bring in money from fines.

 

[42769vette]

In 1995, right in Lafayette Indiana, I had a friend get a DWI sitting in a truck listening to the radio. He admittedly had too much to drink, so he figured he wouldn take a nap in the bar parking lot and make sure not to drive under the influence. The cop woke him up and arrested him for drunk driving, even though the vehicle had never left the parking stall. I thought that was pretty bad then. With the economy getting tight, LEO's have a lot more pressure to bring in money from fines.

fines are one thing, speeding is a fine. dui can cause serious damage like loss of licence. loss of licence can = loss of job. it could even mean felonys in some cases (wich i think is another dumb law)

 

[Love the 1911]

I have charged passengers with PI before. I can only think of one instance off the top of my head. It was a hispanic male who registered 0.20 on my PBT (not a certified instrument but they usually are close), the driver was also very drunk, and the passenger was not able to tell me where he lived or get a ride. He mentioned he lived in a town that would take 30 minutes to get to but did not provide an address. What should have been done? Should I let him wander the streets until he either A)sobered up B) got run over by a car C) passed out in a ditch when it was around 40 degrees out, or D) arrest him to make sure he has any medical needs attended to?

I have let literally hundreds of drunk people call their friends to come get them from a stop where the driver is being arrested. We've already got 2 hours of paper work to complete after the OWI investigation is complete and the driver is transported to the jail. Unless there is no other way or someone wants to be a jerk, I don't need to add to that work that will already take me up until my shift is nearly over.

 

[GBuck]

Love the 1911, I was going to rep you, but apparently I have repped you recently and I have to spread it around first.

 

[radonc73]

It is all about the money.

 

[GlockFox]

You are right, I don't know the circumstances, however in this light really anything can be construed as PI. Heck the cops can just wait outside of any establishment that sells alcohol and nab you when you are walking to a cab that was going to take you home.

 

[Gabriel]

I have charged passengers with PI before. I can only think of one instance off the top of my head. It was a hispanic male who registered 0.20 on my PBT (not a certified instrument but they usually are close), the driver was also very drunk, and the passenger was not able to tell me where he lived or get a ride. He mentioned he lived in a town that would take 30 minutes to get to but did not provide an address. What should have been done? Should I let him wander the streets until he either A)sobered up B) got run over by a car C) passed out in a ditch when it was around 40 degrees out, or D) arrest him to make sure he has any medical needs attended to?

I arrested a passenger for PI earlier this year. The car was parked in the middle of the street and the driver was lying on the road in the oncoming lane. The passenger was too intoxicated to speak, let alone move to get out of the car.