Check Stop Tweets

[getbak]

Seriously, are this many people trying to break down the logic of what was clearly a joke?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I believe that once you enter the drivers' side with the keys, you are in control of your vehicle. And if you are drunk, you're done for. So no, nobody caught in that situation could expect to have such charges thrown out.

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Actually, I have been told it is. When I lived in Manitoba, it was brought up about what if people are sleeping in thier car after having a few drinks, and the RCMPs response was that so long as an impared person is in the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition, it is technically operating a motor vehicle, moving or not.

I agree, sorry I wasn't clear. Once you're behind the wheel you're technically a driver and can (should) get busted. I believe here the rule is 2 steps away from driving so keys in hand would be a DUI (keys into ignition, turn ignition). I know someone who got a DUI drink sleeping in their car with the radio on so absolutely, yes.

What I meant was that if they were just pulling over people leaving the bar for no reason that would have to be an issue, no? The simple act of leaving an establishment and entering your car is not criminal, and if you were not visibly intoxicated and operated you vehicle within the law they have no cause to pull you over right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by getbak

Seriously, are this many people trying to break down the logic of what was clearly a joke?

I can't figure out anything around here anymore, with no hockey I feel like I'm in an episode of Animaniacs.

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I agree, sorry I wasn't clear. Once you're behind the wheel you're technically a driver and can (should) get busted. I believe here the rule is 2 steps away from driving so keys in hand would be a DUI (keys into ignition, turn ignition). I know someone who got a DUI drink sleeping in their car with the radio on so absolutely, yes.

What I meant was that if they were just pulling over people leaving the bar for no reason that would have to be an issue, no? The simple act of leaving an establishment and entering your car is not criminal, and if you were not visibly intoxicated and operated you vehicle within the law they have no cause to pull you over right?

Actually, impaired driving includes "care and control". This means, that if you have the ability to put that car into motion, it's care and control.

This includes sitting in the drivers seat or manipulating fittings and equipment that would create a danger.

Changing a tire while drunk? Maybe.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I agree, sorry I wasn't clear. Once you're behind the wheel you're technically a driver and can (should) get busted. I believe here the rule is 2 steps away from driving so keys in hand would be a DUI (keys into ignition, turn ignition). I know someone who got a DUI drink sleeping in their car with the radio on so absolutely, yes.

What I meant was that if they were just pulling over people leaving the bar for no reason that would have to be an issue, no? The simple act of leaving an establishment and entering your car is not criminal, and if you were not visibly intoxicated and operated you vehicle within the law they have no cause to pull you over right?

Depends on the situation, I think. When I was younger, I had more than one bylaw officer put a flashlight in my face and ask how much I had been drinking while walking to my car from an establishment. In all cases though, I was the one with my keys out so it was clear I was going to be the driver. In my case though, I was alway sober in those situations (thus being the driver). I'm not sure what would have happened if I had been drunk. Most likely, it was like a checkstop - a deterrence measure. Though bylaw officers rarely have a sense of humour, so they no doubt would have found something to charge me with if I had been drinking, just not DUI.

[fredr123]

I'll just put this here: http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/...2012scc56.html

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment in October concerning "care and control" and acquitted a drunk man found sleeping in the driver seat of his idling vehicle.

“Care or control” within the meaning of s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code signifies (1) an intentional course of conduct associated with a motor vehicle; (2) by a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or whose blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit; (3) in circumstances that create a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. With respect to the third element, the risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. Parliament’s objective in enacting s. 253 of the Criminal Code was to prevent the risk of danger to public safety that normally arises from the mere combination of alcohol and automobile. Conduct that presents no such risk falls outside the intended reach of the offence. To require that the risk be “realistic” is to establish a low threshold consistent with Parliament’s intention.

The existence of a realistic risk of danger is a matter of fact. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a realistic risk of danger will normally be the only reasonable inference where the Crown establishes impairment and a present ability to set the vehicle in motion. To avoid conviction, the accused will in practice face a tactical necessity of adducing evidence tending to prove that no realistic risk of danger existed in the particular circumstances of the case. The trial judge must examine all of the relevant evidence and may consider a number of factors, including whether the accused took care to arrange an alternate plan to ensure his safe transportation home.

In this case, the guy had called a cab to pick him up. It was February and he was cold so he turned on his truck to warm up before falling asleep behind the wheel.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah and get locked in the car.....nice try Einstein

lol, Einstein indeed. Sure you meant it as a joke, uh huh sure you did.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by zamler

lol, Einstein indeed. Sure you meant it as a joke, uh huh sure you did.

[Minnie]

Huh. Checkstop right in S'more tonight, a block from my house. That's a first.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I agree, sorry I wasn't clear. Once you're behind the wheel you're technically a driver and can (should) get busted. I believe here the rule is 2 steps away from driving so keys in hand would be a DUI (keys into ignition, turn ignition). I know someone who got a DUI drink sleeping in their car with the radio on so absolutely, yes.

What I meant was that if they were just pulling over people leaving the bar for no reason that would have to be an issue, no? The simple act of leaving an establishment and entering your car is not criminal, and if you were not visibly intoxicated and operated you vehicle within the law they have no cause to pull you over right?

So if I was drunk and slept in the back seat of my car with my keys in my pocket I would be fine correct? Or would that count as 2 steps away because (keys in hand, keys in ignition)

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

So if I was drunk and slept in the back seat of my car with my keys in my pocket I would be fine correct? Or would that count as 2 steps away because (keys in hand, keys in ignition)

If you can open your car without your hands ever touching the keys, I think you might be ok. Technically you're 3 steps away because keys are not in hand.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Technically, you can get the first charge but not the second. For example, you are driving like you drank a brewery tank at Elsinore Brewery yet you blow under the .08 limit.

But if you drank the brewery tank at Elsinore Brewery how would you fit in your car, eh?