An old man walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender notices the guy’s head is the size of a cue ball.”I got to ask, sir,” says the bartender. “What happened?”The old guy sighs and tells him, “My ship was torpedoed by the Germans in WWII. A mermaid rescued me and promised to grant me three wishes. For my first wish, I asked to return to the States. My second wish was to have all the money I would ever need. Finally, my third wish was to have sex with the mermaid.””That doesn’t sound too bad,” says the bartender. “Then what happened?””Well,” sighs the man, “mermaids can’t have sex, so I asked her if I could just have a little head… .”
John Bowlen, son of Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, arrested on suspicion of DUI in CaliforniaMark Belcher10:40 AM, Jul 31, 20176:50 PM, Jul 31, 2017nfl arrests | broncos news | john bowlen arrested | son of broncos owner arrested | pat bowlen son john bowlen Autoplay:PauseMuteLoaded: 0%Progress: 0%Remaining Time -1:29CaptionsFullscreenSHOW CAPTIONPASO ROBLES, Calif. — The son of Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos, is facing charges in California over driving under the influence. Police in California arrested John Bowlen Sunday afternoon and booked him into the San Luis Obispo County Jail.According to police records, Bowlen faces two charges related to driving after drinking alcohol, including Driving with BAC .08 or Higher and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Those charges are booked as 23152(A) VC and 23152(B) VC. Police in California say they do not release arrest reports, but Denver7 is working to obtain the records. It’s not the first time Bowlen has been in trouble with the law.He was found guilty in April 2016 of harassing a girlfriend the year before, and was sentenced to 24 months of probation with drug and alcohol evaluation. He was also ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment.He’d originally been charged with two domestic violence counts in that case after his girlfriend called 911 on him because he was inebriated, and he followed by shoving her against a wall, according to police reports.He also pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired in August 2005, according to Colorado court records.A spokesperson for the Broncos could not provide a comment concerning the arrest, citing “a personal matter for John, who is not employed by the team.
The heart of this case — State v. Boecker if you want to read it yourself — involves the type of issue that only lawyers can really get behind . . . complex statutory interpretation. But even the most convoluted cases can be simplified for non-lawyers, and State v. Boecker is no exception. Basically, this case came about because the Minnesota Legislature has done a terrible job writing our DWI laws, creating loopholes and contradictions across various statutes. Because we get a new Legislature every two years, the situation gets progressively worse, as future law makers then make even dumber decisions, like inserting language describing the “intent” of previous lawmakers from decades past.
This isn’t uncommon — very few of our legislators are actual attorneys, or even have legal training— but it seems to get especially ugly with our DWI laws. And our Courts, who are responsible for interpreting the letter of the law (not the “spirit,” and especially not when the statute imposes a criminal penalty) sometimes make a deliberate effort to “look the other way” when a DWI law is being scrutinized for lousy drafting.
And that’s what happened here. Minnesota’s DWI laws make any DWI a felony-level offense (meaning you can go to prison) if you have a prior felony offense at any point in your lifetime. In fact, the statute lists all of the possible ways of enhancing a misdemeanor DWI to a felony.
But in Boecker’s case, the statute didn’t list his specific offense, that happened in 1998. The Minnesota Supreme Court relied largely on some “statement of intent” language that was inserted by the 2012 Legislature, purporting to describe the intent of the 2007 Legislature . . . and things just got more confusing from there. Long story short, the Court concluded that even though Mr. Boecker’s prior 1998 DWI wasn’t listed as an option for enhancing his current offense to the level of a felony, they were just going to “read it into the statute” (that’s me paraphrasing).
That’s typically a huge no-no — if a criminal statute doesn’t say something explicitly, it’s not the role of the the Courts to invent language to cover any gaps. But that’s what happened in Boecker . . . and now he’s going to spend several years in prison for driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.14. That may or may not have been the intent of the Legislature, but if it was their intent, they should have done a much, much better job of saying it.
Source: Ramsay Law Firm
A guy walks into a bar and asks for a beer. He chugs it, looks into his pocket and asks for another beer. He chugs that beer, looks into his pocket and asks for another.The man does this a few more times until the bartender asks, “How come you ask for a beer, chug it, then look in your pocket?”The man says, “Because there is a picture of my wife in my pocket and I’m gonna keep drinking till she looks good enough for me to go home.”
Josh Daves was standing in the gravel parking lot across from the brewery around 7:30 p.m. when he heard a loud crashing sound, he said. He looked over at his Chevy Silverado that was parked on Green Street and saw a Ford Ranger had crashed into it.
“I was hoping (the driver) was OK because that was a bad accident,” Daves said.
But when Daves ran over to his truck, he said the woman behind the wheel was screaming and seemed ready to drive away .
“I told her, ‘You don’t leave,’” Daves said. “She just slammed on the gas and drove away.”
Officer B.M. Linares responded to the scene and eventually located the vehicle on Kirksey Drive, according to a police report.
Linares arrested the driver, Ruth Ann Lyons, 54, and charged her with driving while impaired and felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture after oxycodone, hydrocodone and alprazolam were found in her vehicle, the report said.
Daves said he bought his 2014 truck in April, and it was hit by another vehicle two weeks ago. He was prepared to get the earlier incident taken care of on Friday, but the crash on Thursday made his situation even worse.
“I finally worked my way up to where I could get a nice vehicle, and this is what happens,” Daves said.
Daves estimates about $15,000 worth of damage was done to the truck, which was valued at $32,000 before the crash.
Daves is a brewer at Catawba Brewing Company and was working when the crash happened. He said his background in beer makes him even more upset that an allegedly impaired person got behind the wheel.
“I knew she was gone — under the influence of something,” Daves said. “It’s terrible. You should not be out driving and drinking or drugging. She could have easily hit a pedestrian. It could have been a lot worse.”
Linares also found marijuana in the vehicle, the report said. Lyons’ additional charges include simple possession of schedule VI narcotics, possession of drug paraphernalia, no operators license, safe movement violation and misdemeanor hit and run.
Lyons consented to a blood test before being transported to the magistrate’s office, where she was issued a $20,000 bond, the report said. The crash also caused Dave’s truck to hit a Jeep parked beside it.
The Operation Of A Motor Vehicle Requirement For A DUIAn essential element for a DUI conviction in Kentucky according to the Kentucky DUI statute, KRS 189A.010 (1), requires that “a person shall not operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle anywhere in this state.” A person who is not in control of a motor vehicle simply cannot be guilty of a DUI.So for example, if an officer observes a properly parked vehicle with an intoxicated person sitting behind the wheel, with the keys in the ignition and the motor running, and the person inside sitting there just smoking and texting on their cell phone, is that behavior sufficient to meet the proof of operation to support a DUI arrest? What if the intoxicated person was asleep at the time that the officer arrived? The simple answer to both questions is it depends on the facts and whether the prosecutor can prove the intoxicated person was operating or in control of the vehicle.In order to prove operation or control of the vehicle to support a DUI arrest and subsequent conviction, the prosecutor has the burden of proving the following four factors:Whether or not the person in the vehicle was asleep or awake;Whether or not the motor is running;Location of the vehicle and all the circumstances bearing on how the vehicle arrived at that location; andThe intent of the person behind the wheel.The first factor, whether a person is asleep or awake, is easily observed by the officer. But by itself it is not sufficient to support a DUI arrest. Courts have held that a sleeping person is not in operation of a vehicle.The second factor may be more difficult since determining whether or not a gasoline or diesel engine is running is easy but with the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles on the roadways in recent years it does make it more difficult to determine whether or not an electric motor is running since they are mostly silent when running and designed to remain off while the vehicle is stopped. However, at least one court has held that merely starting a vehicle’s engine or motor is not an exercise of actual physical control.The third factor, the location of the vehicle and all the circumstances bearing on how the vehicle arrived at that location, are important in determining operation. For example, when did the driver become intoxicated: before or after parking the vehicle? Was the driver discovered before any new driving could begin?The fourth factor, the intent of the person behind the wheel, is more difficult to prove and has been the subject of numerous court hearings over the years. Kentucky courts have held that sleeping drivers in properly parked vehicles could not have had any intention to drive under those circumstances. Furthermore, as a court stated, merely being awake in the driver seat of a vehicle with the engine on does not require finding of an intent to drive or it would constitute a separate factor in the determination of whether the person and the vehicle was awake or asleep.Answering the questions in the example above, a person who is sitting in the driver seat of a properly parked vehicle in which that person can comfortably smoke and text, rather than using the vehicle as a mode of imminent transportation, shows that the person did not intend to drive. In that situation the person is not in operation of the vehicle to support a DUI arrest.
LOS BANOS, Calif. (KRON) — Authorities are investigating whether an 18-year-old Stockton woman live-streamed herself driving drunk Friday in Los Banos.
Obdulia Sanchez was later involved in an accident that killed her 14-year-old sister on Henry Miller Rd. around 6:40 p.m.
Sanchez is seen broadcasting herself live on Instagram as she drives down the road and raps along with the music.
The video has reportedly been pulled from social media sites, but still managed to get lots of circulation around the internet.
At times it looks like both of her hands are off the wheel as she moves the phone around to show different angles,
In one instance, a girl can be seen in the backseat.
Eventually, the video comes to a sudden end in what appears to be Sanchez losing control of the car.
Los Banos investigators aren’t confirming the filming of the live video is linked to the fatal crash, but they are investigating the possibility.
They do confirm that Friday evening Sanchez was with her 14-year-old sister, Jacqueline Sanchez, and another 14-year-old when she started to leave the roadway, over-corrected, and crashed.
Neither of the 14-year-olds were wearing a seat belt.
Both were thrown from the car and Jacqueline Sanchez died at the scene.
The other 14-year-old passenger suffered what authorities call “severe trauma” to one of her legs in the crash.
Obdulia Sanchez is charged with DUI and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
She has not, however, been charged with using her phone while driving.
Still, the video remains as a stark reminder of the dangers of not just driving intoxicated, but distracted driving.