I'm not saying you wouldn't have an argument. (In fact, I fully believe that I could win that argument.) But not every "sleeping drunk in a car" case results in an OWI conviction - not by a long shot - because it's possible to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the sleeping drunk had ever actually operated while being intoxicated. And keep in mind that you have to remain "operating" the vehicle at all times to remain within the defined exception. In an OWI case, the prosecution only has to prove that at some point you operated while intoxicated.Then how do they convict people for OWI, when they are merely in the vehicle sleeping it off in some parking lot?
Just one of those inconsistencies I've always wondered about.
"The law is what I say it is," I guess.
I really don't care about the idiot who took the gun to school. My real concern is why the judge ordered the guns to be destroyed. What the heck did they do? If you were stopped for taking your dog someplace that it is not permitted would they shoot the dog?
But not every "sleeping drunk in a car" case results in an OWI conviction - not by a long shot - <snip> In an OWI case, the prosecution only has to prove that at some point you operated while intoxicated.