Anyone hear Steve McNair was arrested last night? (2 Viewers)

[BigJim®]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

 

[enfuego]

You seem to think I'm about it, which I'm not. Not whining in the slightest. My opinion is that the law is silly, as are many others. I also realize I live here in the USA, so I have to obey them.

Colin, I thought you are an attorney yourself. Certainly you understand the concept of aiding and abetting? Are you saying that concerning aiding and abetting, there should be an exception for driving while impaired?

Aiding and abetting? Are you kidding me? What this will come down to is:

Did McNair know the BIL was drunk? yes = Mcnair guilty, no = Mcnair innocent...

We could argue the finer points of DWI/DUI all day long. The fact is, it's a horrific crime that kills people and should not be tolerated under any circumstances...but to go in further detail, we should move this segment out of the Shark Pool and into the http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showforum=4. That's all I have for now.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Thanks for the info. Another serious question given this information: Since the BIL refused the breathalyzer, they won't have hard evidence on just how drunk he was. Unless he was completely stumbling around and falling over, can't the owner fairly easily present reasonable doubt that he knew the driver was drunk? Even if the guy had blown, if he doesn't come in at something like double the limit, wouldn't it be unreasonable to expect an untrained person to essentially administer a field sobriety test with any sort of accuracy? Deniability and reasonable doubt would seem to neuter this law in all but the most extreme cases (when, back to my previous question, existing negligence laws would seem to apply)

 

[stevegamer]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

That soudns like it would include lending someone your car for the week while vacationing elsewhere and getting charged when you return home.Bizarre.

 

[redman]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

That soudns like it would include lending someone your car for the week while vacationing elsewhere and getting charged when you return home.Bizarre.

Why would it mean that? Unless the person you're lending it to has DUI convictions in his past that you know about, why on earth would merely lending your car to someone be tantamount to "knowingly permit" the operation of the vehicle while drunk?

 

[BigJim®]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Thanks for the info. Another serious question given this information: Since the BIL refused the breathalyzer, they won't have hard evidence on just how drunk he was. Unless he was completely stumbling around and falling over, can't the owner fairly easily present reasonable doubt that he knew the driver was drunk? Even if the guy had blown, if he doesn't come in at something like double the limit, wouldn't it be unreasonable to expect an untrained person to essentially administer a field sobriety test with any sort of accuracy? Deniability and reasonable doubt would seem to neuter this law in all but the most extreme cases (when, back to my previous question, existing negligence laws would seem to apply)

It's a good question. Candidly I'm unfamiliar with this law and I myself see some ambiguity in whether it means "knowingly permit the operation of the car" generally [i.e. excluding cases of theft or unknown taking of the vehicle] or if it means "knowingly permit the criminal act." I have a hunch it is the first answer, because [as you mention], it would be hard to meet that standard of proof that one knew that another person exceeded .08.

 

[Frank Black]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Doesn't that get us back to an evidence requirement that the owner was present? Otherwise, how would the owner know the driver was impaired?

 

[Frank Black]

You seem to think I'm about it, which I'm not. Not whining in the slightest. My opinion is that the law is silly, as are many others. I also realize I live here in the USA, so I have to obey them.

Colin, I thought you are an attorney yourself. Certainly you understand the concept of aiding and abetting? Are you saying that concerning aiding and abetting, there should be an exception for driving while impaired?

Aiding and abetting? Are you kidding me? What this will come down to is:

Did McNair know the BIL was drunk? yes = Mcnair guilty, no = Mcnair innocent...

We could argue the finer points of DWI/DUI all day long. The fact is, it's a horrific crime that kills people and should not be tolerated under any circumstances...but to go in further detail, we should move this segment out of the Shark Pool and into the http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showforum=4. That's all I have for now.

I will add knew or should have known. The should have known part is important because without that, defendants would always say they did not know and therefore escape responsibility. To prove that the owner should have known, the DA needs strong evidence that any reasonable person under the circumstances would have known the driver was impaired. For example, did the driver have slurred speech, red eyes? Was he stumbling all over the place?

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

It's an idiotic law, regardless.

Your BIL borrows your car to 'run some errands'. He goes to a bar, gets drunk and gets pulled over. Now YOU'RE guilty of a misdemeanor and can be arrested also. Utter stupidity.

 

[BigJim®]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Doesn't that get us back to an evidence requirement that the owner was present? Otherwise, how would the owner know the driver was impaired?

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant they have to be present in the car at the time of being pulled over. As I mentioned in my 2 examples, they could give the keys to an intoxicated person while at home, allowing that person to drive away alone, with similar applicability of the law.

 

[Christo]

According to PFT, WBAL radio is reporting that he was arrested under the "DUI Owner" law which makes the owner of a vehicle driven by somebody that is drunk responsible as well. McNair's brother in law was reportedly the one driving drunk.

Now that's a bunk law.

Why? Especially if it's true that he was in the car too?

 

[Christo]

According to PFT, WBAL radio is reporting that he was arrested under the "DUI Owner" law which makes the owner of a vehicle driven by somebody that is drunk responsible as well. McNair's brother in law was reportedly the one driving drunk.

Now that's a bunk law.

How so? He was a passenger of the car, and should not have allowed a drunk to be behind the wheel. Presumably he handed a drunk his keys, which fits fairly comfortably within the category of criminal negligence. Maybe if he was not involved at all, i.e. at home watching TV, totally unaware, I would look at this law differently. However in that case I highly doubt the law would apply unless the keys were handed to a drunk person.

Lot of assumptions in this post.

There are also a lot of assumptions made by anyone who states that it's a "bunk" law-or makes the comment that a rental car company company could be held liable-without actually taking the time to find out exactly why one can be charged under the law.

 

[Christo]

That may be the stupidest law ever.

Why?

 

[Christo]

That may be the stupidest law ever.

A law that screams "get a cab instead of risking the lives of your intoxicated friends and the community" is stupid? Guys, take a step back. Allowing a drunk to drive your car is no different than handing a drunk your firearm. It's based on criminal negligence where there is a significant risk of harm to others. I don't have any problem with this law if it cuts down on instances where 2 drunk people are playing "I think I'm more sober than you."

It's a stupid law because it tries to extend individual responsibility to other people.

McNair's not responsible for controlling his own personal property?

 

[Christo]

That may be the stupidest law ever.

A law that screams "get a cab instead of risking the lives of your intoxicated friends and the community" is stupid? Guys, take a step back. Allowing a drunk to drive your car is no different than handing a drunk your firearm. It's based on criminal negligence where there is a significant risk of harm to others. I don't have any problem with this law if it cuts down on instances where 2 drunk people are playing "I think I'm more sober than you."

It's a stupid law because it tries to extend individual responsibility to other people. Serious question: do you ever get behind the wheel after having a drink?

Newsflash: we extend individual responsibility to other people all the time. Hell, we have billions of dollars of tobacco litigation going on right now that's premised upon precisely the same priniciple.

You're assuming I agree with those "extensions of ind. responsibility", which I don't.

So your drunk friend comes to you and asks for your car keys so he can hit Taco Bell before it closes, you give the keys to him and ask him to get you some soft tacos, and on the way there he kills someone.You're disavowing any responsibility whatsoever?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

It's an idiotic law, regardless.Your BIL borrows your car to 'run some errands'. He goes to a bar, gets drunk and gets pulled over. Now YOU'RE guilty of a misdemeanor and can be arrested also. Utter stupidity.

You haven't read the paragraph describing the law or apparently, any of this thread. The law doesn't apply to the situation you described.

 

[Christo]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

That soudns like it would include lending someone your car for the week while vacationing elsewhere and getting charged when you return home.Bizarre.

How so?

 

[Christo]

It's an idiotic law, regardless.

Your BIL borrows your car to 'run some errands'. He goes to a bar, gets drunk and gets pulled over. Now YOU'RE guilty of a misdemeanor and can be arrested also. Utter stupidity.

No you're not.

 

[enfuego]

That may be the stupidest law ever.

A law that screams "get a cab instead of risking the lives of your intoxicated friends and the community" is stupid? Guys, take a step back. Allowing a drunk to drive your car is no different than handing a drunk your firearm. It's based on criminal negligence where there is a significant risk of harm to others. I don't have any problem with this law if it cuts down on instances where 2 drunk people are playing "I think I'm more sober than you."

It's a stupid law because it tries to extend individual responsibility to other people. Serious question: do you ever get behind the wheel after having a drink?

Newsflash: we extend individual responsibility to other people all the time. Hell, we have billions of dollars of tobacco litigation going on right now that's premised upon precisely the same priniciple.

You're assuming I agree with those "extensions of ind. responsibility", which I don't.

So your drunk friend comes to you and asks for your car keys so he can hit Taco Bell before it closes, you give the keys to him and ask him to get you some soft tacos, and on the way there he kills someone.You're disavowing any responsibility whatsoever?

Christo...Do you have any friends? Ever lend them any property? What about your car? Better not in a state with a law like this lest you be held liable. "But he was sober when I gave him the keys..." BTW, what the hell is your avatar all about?

 

[Christo]

Christo...Do you have any friends? Ever lend them any property? What about your car? Better not in a state with a law like this lest you be held liable. "But he was sober when I gave him the keys..."

TitanBlitz...Do you have any friends? Ever lend them any property? What about your gun? Better not in in a state with a law that holds you liable for aiding and abbetting a bank robber. "But he only told me he was going to the bank to open a checking account and needed a gun..."

 

[Frank Black]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Doesn't that get us back to an evidence requirement that the owner was present? Otherwise, how would the owner know the driver was impaired?

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant they have to be present in the car at the time of being pulled over. As I mentioned in my 2 examples, they could give the keys to an intoxicated person while at home, allowing that person to drive away alone, with similar applicability of the law.

In my analysis, "present" means present at a relevant time to observe the intoxication that is relevant in time proximity to the driving. That could include being in the car or handing off the keys knwing the driver is about to drive.Edited to correct typo.

 

[Frank Black]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

That makes sense, and as a practical matter probably how it's enforced in any event, but technically the Tennessee law does not require the presence of the owner. In theory [although I'm not finding in caselaw], if a person gave the keys to a person he/she knew to be drunk, sent a drunk person alone to go pick up another case of beer using one's vehicle, etc. this law could be applied.Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles.-(a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

That soudns like it would include lending someone your car for the week while vacationing elsewhere and getting charged when you return home.Bizarre.

I disagree with your hypo. In your hypo, it would not be reasonable to be aware of the intoxication while you on are on your vacation. The law requires knowledge.

 

[BigJim®]

The owner must also be present in the vehicle.

to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Doesn't that get us back to an evidence requirement that the owner was present? Otherwise, how would the owner know the driver was impaired?

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant they have to be present in the car at the time of being pulled over. As I mentioned in my 2 examples, they could give the keys to an intoxicated person while at home, allowing that person to drive away alone, with similar applicability of the law.

In my analysis, "present" means present at a relevant time to observe the intoxication that is in relevant time proximity to the driving. That could include being in the car or handing off the keys knwing the driver is about to drive.

Yes, we're in agreement.

 

[fatness]

Probably out of place in this mostly-theoretical discussion, but here's the Baltimore Sun article from about 1:30 this afternoon. Baltimore Sun article

Ravens quarterback Steve McNair was arrested late yesterday in Nashville, Tenn., on a driving under the influence charge for allegedly allowing his vehicle to be operated by a drunken driver, police said this morning. McNair was a passenger in his silver 2003 Dodge pickup truck, which was being driven by his brother-in-law.

The three-time Pro Bowl quarterback was arrested under a misdemeanor statute called "DUI by consent" that charges the owner if an intoxicated person is allowed to drive a vehicle. Police didn't perform a blood-alcohol test on McNair, so it's unclear whether he was impaired. But under Tennessee law, it doesn't matter if McNair was drinking, only if the driver was impaired.

Because of the arrest, McNair could be subject to discipline under the NFL's stringent personal conduct policy, which has become a point of emphasis with commissioner Roger Goodell. Any violation -- whether it's a felony or misdemeanor -- can result in action by the league. "We will look into it," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

McNair's vehicle, which was being driven by Jamie Cartwright, was stopped at 11:53 p.m. yesterday after police clocked it at 45 mph in a 35-mph zone five miles southwest of downtown Nashville. The officer detected an odor of alcohol and saw that Cartwright's eyes were red and glassy, according to police.

Cartwright, 31, told police that he drank at least two beers earlier in the evening. He then took a field sobriety test which indicated impairment, police said. Cartwright, who refused to take a Breathalyzer test, was arrested on DUI charges along with McNair.

Nashville police have charged 43 people, including McNair, with violating the "DUI by consent" statute this year. McNair and Cartwright were both taken downtown, where McNair was later released. Wearing a brown T-shirt and jeans, McNair did not talk to a television cameraman when leaving the police station. He was accompanied by a friend, nightclub owner Robert 'Big Daddy' Gaddy, who told a local Nashville television station that McNair had done nothing wrong.

Ravens officials are still waiting to talk to McNair but said they don't believe he has ever been convicted of any previous crime. The team could issue a statement later today. "What we know [about last night's arrest] is just from media reports," said Kevin Byrne, the Ravens' senior vice president of public relations.

This is the second DUI arrest for McNair, who guided the Ravens to a 13-3 record in his first season with the team. In May 2003, McNair was arrested in Nashville on charges of driving under the influence and illegal gun possession. The charges were dismissed after a judge threw out the evidence, stating police did not have sufficient reason to pull him over.

McNair is also the second Raven to be charged with DUI in the past eight months. In October, return specialist B.J. Sams was arrested Oct. 3 after his car swerved and nearly struck another vehicle. He is scheduled to go to court next week.

 

[fatness]

Baltimore Sun blog

"It's so easy to jump at the first facts," says Michael McCann, an assistant professor at the Mississippi College School of Law who runs sports-law.blogspot.com. "We're moved by the tragedy or the initial news report."

 

[waylander]

I lived in TN for about the past decade, and to my knowledge they passed a "DUI by Consent" law about two years ago. Meaning, if you are in a car with someone who gets charged with a DUI, all passengers of age get charged with a DUI as well.

 

[greenroom]

So how long till the NFL comes down on McNair for getting arrested?

 

[Frank Black]

It's an idiotic law, regardless.Your BIL borrows your car to 'run some errands'. He goes to a bar, gets drunk and gets pulled over. Now YOU'RE guilty of a misdemeanor and can be arrested also. Utter stupidity.

I don't think the law applies to your hypo. Under your hypo, there is not sufficient evidence that you knew your friend would stop at a bar and get drunk. Even if your friend told you he would stop at a bar during his errands, you still don't have sufficient evidence that he would drink enough to become impaired. In other words, the DA needs to prove that the owner was in a position to observe the impairment.

 

[sho nuff]

My question is this...Is McNair in the substance abuse program after his first DUI arrest? If so, would this be strike 2 and an automatic 4 game suspension (not worrying about the personal conduct policy)?