www.charlesjeromeware.com "Here to make a Difference."
Premier defense attorney Charles Jerome Ware is Maryland-based and nationally-respected as one of the top DUI and DWI defense attorneys in the United States. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact him at (410) 720-6129. He can help you. The information provided herein does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the reader or others.
Rather than just attempt to drive any distance (short or otherwise) while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Maryland prefers that drivers just pull off the road to a safe spot and "sleep it off."
In other words, Maryland supports the so-called "stationary shelter" doctrine. The doctrine recognizes the fact that society does not want to penalize someone who is using a motor vehicle for "shelter" as opposed to as a "motor vehicle". Public policy does not desire to discourage someone who is intoxicated who gets into a motor vehicle from not driving and simply using the car or truck as a shelter to "sleep it off".
The important Maryland case for this doctrine is Boyce Cornelius ATKINSON vs. STATE of Maryland, 627 A.2d 1019, 331 Md. 199 (1993):
Maryland Code (1977, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Transportation Article, Section 21-902, provides that a person "may not drive or attempt to drive" a vehicle while intoxicated, while under the influence of alcohol, while under the influence of drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs, or while under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. The term "drive" has several meanings, as provided for in Section 11-114 of the Transportation Article : "Drive" means to drive, operate, move, or be in actual physical control of a vehicle ...."
The issue in Atkinson vs. State was whether the appellant(defendant) who was sitting intoxicated and asleep in the driver's seat of his vehicle, lawfully parked on the shoulder of the road, with the keys in the ignition but the engine off, was properly found to be in "actual physical control" of his vehicle and thereby convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Because the Court believed the appellant/defendant was not in "actual physical control" of his vehicle, as contemplated by the statute, his conviction was REVERSED.
No comments:
Post a Comment