DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE--EVEN AT HOME

     The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Indiana's laws against drunk driving apply even when a motorist is driving on his or her own private property.  You do not have to be driving on a public roadway in order to be convicted of operating while intoxicated. 

     In June of 2006, the defendant was operating an all-terrain vehicle on his own property in a rural area of Marshall County.  He was driving it well away from the public roadway, in a wooded area about three hundred yards from his cabin.  He had an accident, sustaining fractures and head trauma, and was taken to the hospital.  Police suspected that he had been drinking and, after having blood drawn, charged him with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  The defendant moved the trial court to suppress evidence on the grounds that he could not be charged with OWI for operating an all-terrain vehicle on his own private property.  The Marshall Superior Court granted the motion to suppress, and the State appealed.    

     On appeal, the defendant's attorney argued that the OWI statute's use of the terms "operator" and "vehicle" are both defined by reference to use upon a public highway.  Defense counsel further argued that in driving his ATV in a wooded area of his own property, the defendant was not in any way endangering the public, and that the OWI laws should not be extended to encompass a motorist's use of a vehicle on the driver's own private property.  

     The Indiana Supreme Court rejected the defendant's arguments.  Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Brent Dickson noted that the State has a strong interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens, referring not only to third persons but also the danger that a defendant presents to himself.  The Court concluded:  "Regardless of where the defendant's driving occurred, whether on public or private property, and even if on the defendant's own property, the State is authorized to charge him with intoxicated driving offenses."  The Court issued its opinion for publication on April 8, 2009, and it is now the law of the land. 

     So the next time you're having a cookout at your house and need to move some cars around in your driveway, you'd better be careful.  And if you've been sloshing down a few cold ones, let somebody who hasn't been drinking do it. 

     

ELECTION OF INDIANA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

     The Indiana legislature has recently been considering House Joint Resolution 9, which calls for the election of Indiana Supreme Court justices.  Currently, potential justices are carefully considered and selected by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, which then submits the names of finalists to the governor for final decision without regard to political affiliation.  This is known as the merit selection system, and it has been in effect in Indiana since 1971.  For a variety of reasons, I think that Joint Resolution 9 is a bad idea, and I am glad that, as of late this afternoon, the bill had not made it out of committee for consideration by the full House.  

     My primary reason for opposing the bill is that it would require potential justices to wade into the muck and mire of the political arena.  They would have to organize extensive fundraising campaigns.  They would be forced to solicit massive campaign contributions, and to court the approval of special interest groups who would hope to gain from the election of favorable justices.  Rather than exercising only their independent legal judgment, they would have to be concerned about following the political mood of the day, and about pleasing their campaign supporters.  All of this strikes me as being inherently bad.  

     The author of the bill, Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka, has said that its passage is necessary because the justices are not currently accountable to the political process.  I for one think that is a good thing.  Our neighboring states that have systems for elected appellate judges have seen literally millions of dollars poured into the campaigns of candidates by special interest groups hoping to influence election outcomes.  That situation has to undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.  

     For the most part, Indiana's merit selection process has worked very well over the years.  The Indiana Supreme Court is greatly respected for its independence, fairness, and high ethical standing. I believe that our merit selection process is fine just as it is.  I'm thankful that, at least for the time being, the House's Government and Regulatory Reform Committee apparently agrees.