Ok, you explain where my guilt was and why Feigers office and one civil rights lawyer wouldn't take the case. 9/11/06 I was parked legaly on a residential street. While parked I consumed 1.5 pints of vodka for pain relief. No keys in ignition. Keys in ignition does not matter. If you have care, custody, and control of the vehicle, you can be considered DUI.
Thats BS. In People v. Wood, 450 Mich. 399:538 N.W.2nd 351 (1995), overuled the holding of both People v. Pomeroy (on rehearing) and People v. Fulcher (on rehearing) 419 Mich. 441: 335 N.W.2nd 98 (1984), as to the definition of operating a motor vehicle. Pursuant to Wood, " a person sleeping in a motionless car cannot be held to be presently operating a vehicle while sleeping." Wood, supra at 405. In Wood, the defendant was found passed out at a McDonalds drive thru with the vehicle in gear and the drivers foot on the brake. The Supreme Court now holds that: " operating" should be defined in terms of the danger the statute seeks to prevent:the collision of a vehicle being operated by a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor with other persons or property.Once a person using a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle has put the vehicle in motion,or in a position posing a significant risk of causing a collision,such a person continues to operate it until the vehicle is returned to a position posing no risk. Wood supra at 404-405. HERE'S ANOTHER ONE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT! In People v. Burton, 252 Mich.App. 130; 651 N.W.2nd 143(2002), the Court of Appeals applied the Wood standard and found that an intoxicated defendant[BAC of 0.17 or 0.18], behind the wheel with his seatbelt fastened, the engine of the vehicle running, the transmition in stationary position, either park or neutral, in a golf course parking lot, with two empty beer bottles in his truck was not "operating". The Burton Court concluded there was not enough evidence that the defendant intended to operate the vehicle within the meaning of Wood because there was no evidence the truck was in motion or that the truck was in a position posing a significant risk of causing a collision. Burton supra at 144, 151. I RECOMEND YOU LEARN THE LAW BEFORE YOU GIVE OUT ANY INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU SPEAK OF UP ON YOUR SOAP BOX! I'm still waiting to hear how you got out of the felony you spoke of!
As for drinking 1.5 pints of Vodka for "pain relief" while sitting in your vehicle... that probably wouldn't sound kosher to a judge or jury. 1.5 pints is a lot to drink, as evidenced by you passing out and being transported to a hospital.
Passed out. Two hours later a woman called LEO's. LEO's unlocked car, put me in ambulance to the hospital. Woke up 8am in emergency room with open intoxicant ticket. Based on what you've written so far, I would say you'd have a real hard time fighting an open intoxicant ticket because it sounds like were drinking IN your vehicle... that's an obvious open intoxicant.
I was told by Feigers office that if I would have plead not guilty of the open intox too they would have been able to help me!!!!!!!!!
9/19/06 officers come to house,arrest me for drunk driving. As previously mentioned, you can be found guilty of DUI just by sitting in your vehicle... whether or not the keys are in the ignition. I'm not saying I agree with the law... but that's the way things are at this moment.
READ ABOVE SUPREME COURT DETERMINATION!!!
20 days later Judge adjourns until prosecutor can talk to the woman who called police in first place. Prosecutor probably wanted to hear what the woman had to say and whether or not she would cooperate with the prosecution in bringing other charges against you.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!
Police write in their report the car was running, woman says the car was not running when she called or when they arrived. 20 days later all charges dropped except the open intoxicant( 2 empty bottles) ticket. Prosecutor might have dropped the DUI charges because the woman contridicted the officer's report. An attorney worth their salt would pounce all over that in court. It doesn't mean that they couldn't have pursued the charges... but they probably figured that no harm was done and they already had you on another charge anyway. You have no real defense to fight the open intoxicant but you did stand a chance to fight the DUI... it sounds like the prosecutor took the path of least resistance.
FEIGERS OFFICE SAID THEY HAD NO CASE ON OPEN INTOX!!!!
Feigers office said the fact I accepted the open intoxicant ticket would make it hard to convince a jury. Sounds about right. Once a jury hears that you passed out in your car after consuming so much alcohol... and that you basically admitted guilt by accepting the open intoxicant charge... it probably wouldn't be far fetched for them to believe that you were DUI.
WHERE"S THE PROOF!!!!!!
It didn't matter the main witness would testify the police report was an obvious lie to the Judge who provided the warrant because " police may have made a mistake in not knowing the difference between a running car or a car that is not running" . I'll agree that this sounds like a line of BS. But at the end of the day, you should be thankful that the officers DID screw up... it is very likely the only thing that saved you from being brought up on charges of DUI. Just sitting in your vehicle while drunk is enough to charge you. If the officer's hadn't lied in their report (saying the engine was running, a direct contradiction of the lady who called them), you probably would've been charged for that as well. This is an example where an inaccurate police report can cost the prosecution a "layup" conviction.
OFFICERS COMMITED A CRIME! LYING TO A JUDGE!!!!
Now what was your felony arrest? You can't remember? I do remember. I was arrested and charged with Interferring with Police. In a nutshell, officers responded to a call about someone I was with while on private property. The subject was an acquaintence of mine (at the time), but I had no involvement in whatever he was doing or trying to do. In fact, when police arrived on the scene, I was initially cooperative... I volunteered my ID and volunteered my new address (I had just moved that week) in case the officers needed to follow up with me later. My volunteering of this information resulted in a $100-something citation for "failure to change address on ID". This citation, combined with one of the officers berrating me with unprofessional language, caused me to decide that I was done talking to them. When I no longer wished to cooperate, I was ordered to leave the premises. However I was on private property, had business there, and the owner/operator of the premises hadn't asked me to leave. I explained this to the officer... he was unamused. He continued to berrate me and threatened to arrest me if I didn't leave the premises. More specifically, he told me to "Get the f**k back to my own city" because he said I wasn't welcome in HIS town. At this, I told the officer to either charge me with something or to leave me alone... and that I was not going anywhere until my business was done or the owner/operator asked me to leave. His response was to arrest me for "interferring with police". Needless to say, the charge didn't stick.
HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND IN JAIL AND WHAT WAS YOUR BOND FOR THIS FELONY? IF IN FACT IT WAS A FELONY?
This happened some years ago... it was one of my first highly negative LEO encounters and my very first arrest. Before this, I had minor issues here resulting in being detained... but I had never actually been arrested and charged with anything. After this incident, I was so disgusted that I sought to learn as much as I could about my responsibilities during an LEO encounter to avert situations like this again in the future. I get along with LEO's just fine... but every now and then, I run into a real ballbuster... one that seems to let their ego run in overdrive and who tries to talk/walk all over people. That doesn't fly with me. Most of the time, other officers end up getting involved and the incidents do not progress to anything more than "threat of arrest". Sometimes they result in detainment... sometimes arrest. Admittadly, shooting my mouth off back to officers who berrate me has been the source of some of these problems. But over the years, I've learned to pick my battles. These days, it takes a real special officer to coax me into firing off at the mouth. I believe the last time I did this was last summer when two officers pulled over my friend (I was riding passenger). We had a girl in the backseat (a girl I was kind of "seeing" at the time) and one of the officers asked me if we were heading home to "gangbang" her. As God as my witness, that's what he asked me. I ripped that guy a new butthole. We were promptly released and freed to go... no ticket for my buddy even though he was driving with no seatbelt and headlights.
