[quote=spdrun]Unless he was actually caught DRIVING, he shouldn’t be charged for DUI or fined. Even if the motor was running (who knows, he might not have wanted to freeze to death).[/quote]spd, my experience has been in SD and so I didn’t think of this angle but if the outside temp was in the 30’s or below that night and he didn’t have any heavy jackets or blankets with him, then I can see this as a defense for sleeping with the engine running.
Maybe we should keep this thread in mind to come back to later while this case is followed. Should be interesting and not take too long, since it is a misd … that is, unless his defense counsel keeps continuing his court date. Sometimes they do this while their client attends a MADD meeting, an obligatory 2 AA mtgs and/or the FCP classes in order to look extra responsible before the court with certificates of attendance and completion and have the case dismissed outright. This is only IF the atty thought there was any chance at all of their client being sentenced for DUI. We’ll see what happens here.
It’s still often worth it in CA to go this route if you can afford it, even paying an atty and attending all required “first conviction” mtgs as a “peremptory” measure before making a deal with the prosecutor in order to secure a lesser “wet reckless” conviction or even get it dismissed (if they were not actually driving when arrested). Depending on the value of their vehicle and any points the defendant already had on his/her driving record, they typically save several thousand ($3-8K) on auto insurance premiums over the next 3 years and avoid an SR-22 filing by not having a DUI conviction.
No trial is needed. It’s not that common to have a trial for DUI but does happen on occasion. Not typically with first offenders, though. A trial is often sought by repeat offenders who have a LOT to lose, such as their freedom … ESP if they weren’t driving at the time of arrest, like this young man.
