Remember the old days when you used to be able to make decisions for yourself. Yeah, sometimes American citizens made a bad decision and somebody got hurt or even killed, but people were allowed to think for themselves. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to launch in to a big speech about how laws are ridiculous and we should be able to do whatever we want to. Obviously chaos would ensue. I whole heartedly agree in laws (at least some of them) and in facing consequences (and even punishments) for breaking those laws. But I’m also a little concerned that some laws are getting a little too restrictive and we are starting to let the government tell us what to do.

I am speaking mostly about the OWI laws [at least this time...I'm sure there will be more rants about other topics in the future]. If you are unaware, that stands for Operating While Intoxicated; operating being a very important word in this case.

Are you aware that you can be convicted of drunk driving (OWI) when you haven’t even moved your car yet? As long as you have “control” of the car, then you are guilty of OWI. And by “control” I mean the engine is running and you are sitting in the driver’s seat. The car doesn’t need to be moving. It doesn’t even need to be in park. It just needs to be running.

And it doesn’t matter if you are in a public place or on private property. You could be in a parking lot, in your driveway, in the very middle of your own 500 acre land…as long as the cops have a reason to be in that area and observe you being intoxicated, you are guilty of OWI.

And intoxicated doesn’t mean drunk, per se. Every single state in the Union has lowered their BAC (breath alcohol content) to .08. For many people, you may not consider yourself drunk at .08. Your friends may not consider you drunk at that point. However, if you blow .08 or above, you are guilty of OWI.

Also, a driver may still be arrested and convicted of OWI without proof of “per se” intoxication, when other evidence of impaired driving is shown. For example, a driver with a .06 BAC level can be found guilty of OWI if an arresting law enforcement officer testifies that he observed the driver’s vehicle swerving badly, and that the driver exhibited both slurred speech and severe inattention during questioning after a vehicle stop.

Intoxicated doesn’t just mean under the influence of alcohol. I think we can all figure out that “intoxicated” means both alcohol and drugs [or controlled substance]. But are you aware that “controlled substance” does not mean just illegal drugs. Obviously, if you are high on pot or crack or whatever other illegal drug you partake in and you are in “control” of your vehicle you are guilty of OWI. But if you are on cold medicine or anything over the counter that counts too. If the officer thinks you appear “impaired” or “intoxicated,” then you are guilty of OWI.

But back to the “control” of the motor vehicle issue. I understand the intent. More than likely somebody drunk and behind the wheel of the car is going to drive. They just haven’t been “caught” yet. But the problem with this is the “more than likely” part. What about the minority of the “less than likely?”

What if your mom/boyfriend/brother/whatever kicked you out of the house. You know you are too drunk to drive, but it’s freezing out. So you start the car to warm yourself up. At this point it’s either turning on the car for heat or freezing to death. The court would say you should have turned the car on and then gotten in the back of the car. Ok, good point. But who thinks of that?

What if you are turning on the car to see what time it is so you can figure out who might still be up to come pick you up from the bar because you are too drunk to drive? Granted you can usually see the time or roll down the windows or listen to the radio, etc. by turning the key the opposite direction, but I don’t always think of that totally sober. So why do you expect a drunk person to think that?

Have you seen the movie Minority Report. Basically the movie takes place way in the future. And in the future they have come up with a system to predict murder. They have these “people” who can see in the future and know when a murder is going to happen, where it’s going to happen and who is going to murder who. At first this seems great. This agency (I can’t remember what they call themselves) is able to stop murders before they ever happen. Which sounds great. People are being arrested and their “victims” stay alive.

However as the movie progresses you get to see the down side. Because when you see in the future and interfer you take away a person’s right to change their mind. Even up to the very second just before the act, that person has the right to change their mind and not commit murder.

Same goes with OWI. If you are just sitting in your car, you have yet to drive. And up until you put that car in park and back up or start driving, you still have the right to come to your senses and change your mind. The “bad” act hasn’t happened yet. The crime has not yet occurred [well technically it has because that is now the law, but you get my point].

We are on the verge of allowing laws to get so restrictive we can’t do anything. In the beginning we could drive. Then it got a little more restrictive and you could no longer drive if you’d been drinking. Ok, I’m with you there. We are trying to save lives and it has been proven that people who drive while intoxicated are more likely to cause accidents. And we were all happy. [Well maybe not the drunk drivers, but the rest of us were happy.]

But the government decided that wasn’t good enough. No, they weren’t catching enough people drinking and driving so they had to come up with something new. So they decided that if you are in your car and drunk, even if it’s not moving, then you are a criminal too. You aren’t [yet] a threat to anybody because you are just sitting, but the government doesn’t care.

Next we won’t be able to drink in bars. Because bars are were you drink alcohol and if you drink anywhere but at home that must mean that you will then get in to your car to drive home. And we already know that getting in to your car makes you a criminal.

See, government has taken it upon themselves to make our decisions for us. They have decided that we can’t change our minds and do the right thing. And I guess those of us who do change our minds and end up doing the right thing will just have to suffer for those of us who don’t. Hmm…sounds exactly like the opposite of what I thought our legal system was built on. You know, guilty until proven innocent. Oh, silly me. I mean innocent until proven guilty.

Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. See cause we have this thing about double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.

Well that is except in cases of drunk driving. Cause see in drunk driving cases you go before a judge to determine your jail time and your fine; your criminal case. But when determining how long you will lose your license you have a hearing with the DOT; your administrative case. And the DOT ruling does not have to match the court ruling. The court can find you not guilty, but you can still lose your license at your DOT hearing. This is because driving is not a “right” that Americans have. Instead it is a “privilege” that your state allows you. Lucky us.

And, since the DOT hearing is not a criminal case, the burden of proof for these administrative license hearings is a civil burden of proof. This is a far easier standard for the state than the ?proof beyond a reasonable doubt? in a criminal trial. So basically the arresting officer’s word [under penalty of perjury...oohhh] is all it takes to convict you.

Frankly, I’m exhausted just thinking of all of the ways the government screws you. Yes, we need laws, but we don’t need the government making our decisions. We need our government to trust us. We are, after all, the ones who elect them. They are supposed to be working for us.