.jpg)
Connecticut: not driving while drunk can get you arrested for driving while
drunk. (photo by author)
While most people weren’t looking, perhaps busily pursuing bourgeois interests like actually working for a living and raising their families and loving their spouses and going to libertarian Meetups to discuss the prospects of implementing a live-and-let-live society, the powercrats of Connecticut were busily introducing the Orwellian legal category of “Thought Crime” to the Nutmeg State.
As one might expect, they had to perform contortions and distortions and science fictiony type shape-shifting of legal phrases, the latter already being artificially concocted constructs cooked up like a primordial stew in a legalistic meth lab.
The precedent, reported by the Hartford Courant, involved the arrest of a drunk driver who was drunk but wasn’t driving.
The facts are:
A man, “legally drunk” (referring to an arbitrary one-size-fits-all government number) steps out of a bar, starts his car from afar with a keyless remote, then slides in behind the wheel and sits there.
Doesn’t do anything. Doesn’t go anywhere. Doesn’t put the car in gear. Doesn’t drive out of the parking lot onto a public street.
Gottcha! Guilty of drunk driving.
The legal perversion is:
"In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle," - Chief Justice Chase Rogers of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
So being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol does not require a person to actually operate a vehicle.
It doesn’t require any proof that the person was actually going to operate the vehicle, as opposed to turning the vehicle off and calling a cab.
All it requires is a cop who claims to know what a person is thinking, such as “I’m going to start this car and drive home drunk” as opposed to “I don’t want a DUI so I’m going to turn the vehicle off and call a cab,” and then arresting him for thinking the thoughts the cop thought he thought.
Future Thought Crime applications:
“Your honor, the defendant was standing on the sidewalk in the middle of the block and staring directly across the street for several seconds. She was clearly undertaking the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the illegal act of jaywalking.”
“I observed the perp was standing on the corner of a busy intersection in the city at night and watching cars as they went by. In my professional opinion, and based on my experience with such suspicious activities, this mope was clearly undertaking the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the felonious act of carjacking.”
“Hold it, fella, what’s that bulge in your pocket. Gun, huh? You got a concealed carry permit for that? Oh you do, huh? Okay buddy, get down on your knees and lock your fingers behind your head. I’m disarming you and taking you in. Whaddaya mean it’s legal? You don’t know the law, Pal. By taking a firearms instruction course and obtaining a concealed handgun license and purchasing a firearm and carrying a loaded weapon on your person you clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the criminally irresponsible activity of discharging a firearm in public.”
“Hey, you, reading this article. Do you know that the loyal patriotic operatives at Homeland Security think this hack writer was thinking disrespectful thoughts about our oppressive government when he wrote this article, and that they think you are thinking similar thoughts while reading this article, and that you have therefore clearly undertaken the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion a covert investigation by us into your background and …”
Comments
LOL...Uhuh Gary, I knew that. But an act of treason, these days, is merely to disagree with this administration, so I have committed that act already.
Here's a thought. Maybe he started the engine because it was cold and the bar was closing.
So, he thought he could sit in his car and stay warm until he sobered up, or someone came and got him.
It seems bizarre to construct a drunk driving conviction without anyone driving. Without the vehicle in motion, there could be no prospective victim, no one could be endangered. A parked car, even with the motor running, harms no one.
If the libertarian meet up groups can find a live and let live path forward, please spread the word! alongsidenight.ar.to
About ten years ago, a friend of mine was arguing with his wife. He left the house, drove about five blocks to a liquor store, bought a six-pack, drove home, pulled into his driveway, parked in front of his garage, and proceeded to drink his beer. Since he did not immediately come into the house, his wife called the police. He was arrested for drunk-driving, because he had the keys in his possession. The cops told him if he had pulled into the garage and closed the door, then he would have been drinking at home. He was fined, and lost his driver's license because of the amount of alcohol in his blood. - pbru
A fellow who worked for me years ago had a worse complaint than this one in Bethel, CT.
After an evening of eating and drinking, he decided he was not in good enough shape to drive home. He went to his car, which was parked in a private lot, and went to sleep in the back seat (with his car keys in his pocket). He was woken a short while later by an officer who proceeded to arrest him for drunken driving. The rationale was that he was able to reach the ignition from the back seat, so that qualifed as drunken driving. Although the officer was unable to explain how he would operate the clutch, brake and throttle from the back seat, he was convicted anyway.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!