Steve McNair arrested

[Kiwon]

NASHVILLE (AP) — Baltimore Ravens quarterback Steve McNair was arrested early Thursday and charged with being the owner of a vehicle operated by a drunken driver.

The former Tennessee Titans player was a passenger in his silver pickup, police said.

He was arrested under a misdemeanor statute that charges the owner if an intoxicated person is allowed to drive a vehicle.

The driver was stopped because the truck was speeding, police said.

McNair was arrested in downtown Nashville in May 2003 and charged with DUI and illegal gun possession.

After a year of legal wrangling, a judge dismissed those charges, ruling that police didn't have sufficient reason to pull over McNair in the first place.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/ravens/2007-05-10-mcnair-arrested_N.htm

[packinpatland]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't know. I think this is going too far. If the owner of the vehicle isn't driving, he probably is drunk. I think taking the step that you won't drive is a good decision. Obviously, your abilities to read whether another person is drunk is probably impaired. I think it's kind of petty. It's up to the other individual to determine if they are also too drunk to drive. I think the cops down there are just trying to get him back for getting out a DUI 5 years ago--when a judge ruled that the cops didn't have a legitimate reason for pulling him over.

[BF4MVP]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?
I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

Although, I'm not sure..

[HarveyWallbangers]

I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

I don't agree. I think each individual should take the responsibility of determining whether they are drunk. It seems kind of strange to make a law that requires somebody that is likely more drunk of the two to determine if the other guy is too drunk to drive. I'm sure the driver of the vehicle will get charged for DUI, and get raked over the coals. That seems like a fair result.

[packinpatland]

Even with giving McNair the benefit of doubt, this was still a stupid move on his part.

Call a cab, for heaven's sake!!!! Not like he can't afford it.

[MJZiggy]

True. Even though this is a law I've never heard of, and much as I wouldn't want to be driving drunk, I don't think I'd want anyone else driving my car drunk either. Expecially with me in it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This seems to be going overboard to me. It shows that he likely learned from a past mistake, and didn't want to drive. You can't tell me nobody has gone out with some buddies and given up their keys to their car because they wanted to drink more. Then, you likely get pretty sloshed. How do you have the ability to read how drunk your the "sober" driver got. Now, for making the decision that you aren't going to drive--two people get charged with a car instead of one. Doesn't seem fair to me. Shows me how individual rights keep getting infringed in this country, and individual responsibility is being lost.

[packinpatland]

Guess we can conclude.................his judgment was 'impaired'

[Rastak]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?
I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

Although, I'm not sure..

I'm with Harvey, this is probably one of the dumbest laws I've heard of in a long time. Is it even constitutional?

[MJZiggy]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?
I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

Although, I'm not sure..

I'm with Harvey, this is probably one of the dumbest laws I've heard of in a long time. Is it even constitutional?

Well, McNair's got the money to challenge it...

[Rastak]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?
I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

Although, I'm not sure..

I'm with Harvey, this is probably one of the dumbest laws I've heard of in a long time. Is it even constitutional?

Well, McNair's got the money to challenge it...

It's like charging parents for their kids crimes. MAYBE you were a bad parent....but maybe the kid is just a bad apple. How can you be 100% sure enough to charge someone?

[Zool]

I think the idea is to deter drinking and driving at any cost. There's really no excuse for it. Dont drive after drinking. I realize it wasnt Mc Nair, but he could have said no one is driving my car after drinking.

[Rastak]

I think the idea is to deter drinking and driving at any cost. There's really no excuse for it. Dont drive after drinking. I realize it wasnt Mc Nair, but he could have said no one is driving my car after drinking.

Yea, at any cost. Like the supreme court ruling that they can have checkpoints where they check everyone regardless of probable cause. That's real American. Some third world countries give the individual more rights than that.

If you can stop me without probable cause at a DWI checkpoint, why stop there? Run a check for warrents, search my car. Make sure I am a legal resident. Just think of all the bad things you could fix if the authorities could stop you for NO REASON other than to verify you are not up to evil things.....


The supreme court that upheld that were hypocritical idiots who should have been removed immeditaely for violating their office.

[MJZiggy]

Yea, at any cost. Like the supreme court ruling that they can have checkpoints where they check everyone regardless of probable cause. That's real American. Some third world countries give the individual more rights than that.

If you can stop me without probable cause at a DWI checkpoint, why stop there? Run a check for warrents, search my car. Make sure I am a legal resident. Just think of all the bad things you could fix if the authorities could stop you for NO REASON other than to verify you are not up to evil things.....


The supreme court that upheld that were hypocritical idiots who should have been removed immeditaely for violating their office.

I agree with that.

[Zool]

Go ahead and tell the parents of the 3 year old down the street that was killed by a drunk driver.

I realize there has to be a line that the govt cant cross, but I hardly think that giving a guy a ticket for letting his drunk ass friend drive his car is crossing it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Go ahead and tell the parents of the 3 year old down the street that was killed by a drunk driver.

I realize there has to be a line that the govt cant cross, but I hardly think that giving a guy a ticket for letting his drunk ass friend drive his car is crossing it.

I think it is. I feel sorry for the guy down the street, but I won't be pitied into thinking this is a good idea.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, McNair's got the money to challenge it...

Should that matter at all? Big deal. He has the money. Others don't. Hardly a reason for thinking something is okay--because the guy can afford it.

[Rastak]

Go ahead and tell the parents of the 3 year old down the street that was killed by a drunk driver.

I realize there has to be a line that the govt cant cross, but I hardly think that giving a guy a ticket for letting his drunk ass friend drive his car is crossing it.


I will admit this story is a bit different than I thought. When I first heard it I thought he borrowed the car but the fact he was there does make me at least pause to consider. Even then, I don't think I agree with the law.

[MJZiggy]

Well, McNair's got the money to challenge it...

Should that matter at all? Big deal. He has the money. Others don't. Hardly a reason for thinking something is okay--because the guy can afford it.

The fact that he could afford it doesn't speak to whether it's ok. I was referring to Rastak's question about whether a law like this one is constitutional. McNair has the money to find out if he chose to. I mean does this law mean that if someone steals my car and gets caught drivng drunk with it that I get a citation for it? I am all for handing your keys off when you've been drinking, but you shouldn't hand them to someone who's been drinking with you. This is what designated drivers (a.k.a. wives) are for.

[BallHawk]

I HOPE it applies in ALL states...

I don't agree. I think each individual should take the responsibility of determining whether they are drunk. It seems kind of strange to make a law that requires somebody that is likely more drunk of the two to determine if the other guy is too drunk to drive. I'm sure the driver of the vehicle will get charged for DUI, and get raked over the coals. That seems like a fair result.

I agree with you, Harv. Asking somebody not to drive drunk is simple, but asking the person that is drunk to evaluate somebody else's soberness isn't exactly a smart thing to do. I do think that there is some revenge taking place here, but I think it is mainly police enacting a foolish law.

[GrnBay007]

If you can stop me without probable cause at a DWI checkpoint, why stop there? Run a check for warrents, search my car. Make sure I am a legal resident. Just think of all the bad things you could fix if the authorities could stop you for NO REASON other than to verify you are not up to evil things.....



I'm pretty sure they do run names for outstanding warrants, and as far as the search goes if they see something in plain view that leads them to believe there are drugs in the vehicle they do search.

[the_idle_threat]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?

Quoting the linked article:
McNair ... was charged with a misdemeanor under a Tennessee law that prohibits a vehicle owner from letting it be driven by someone who is inebriated.

It's state law that applies only in Tennessee.

Good.

I agree with Harv and Rastak ... it's a dumb law, and I'm glad WI doesn't have an equivalent law (as far as I know).

Regarding constitutionality ... states are given broad discretion to enact laws to promote safety, morals and general welfare. Unless you can show that this law infringes upon people's rights as named in the U.S. Constitution (i.e. the Bill of Rights) or in that state's constitution, it will not be ruled unconstitutional. Laws are not unconstitutional just because they are a bad idea.

[Rastak]

I just read this also.
Does this law apply in all states? Or just TN?

Quoting the linked article:
McNair ... was charged with a misdemeanor under a Tennessee law that prohibits a vehicle owner from letting it be driven by someone who is inebriated.

It's state law that applies only in Tennessee.

Good.

I agree with Harv and Rastak ... it's a dumb law, and I'm glad WI doesn't have an equivalent law (as far as I know).

Regarding constitutionality ... states are given broad discretion to enact laws to promote safety, morals and general welfare. Unless you can show that this law infringes upon people's rights as named in the U.S. Constitution (i.e. the Bill of Rights) or in that state's constitution, it will not be ruled unconstitutional. Laws are not unconstitutional just because they are a bad idea.


I agree with your last statement but laws that violate the consitution are not allowed to be passed by states. This assumes the supreme court rules that they violate the constitution. However, in the case of Michigan and the sober checkpoints, they completely disregarded the constitution.

Just for the record, I don't drive drunk and I've never had a DWI. I just think that particular decesion was one of the most ill considered since Dred Scott.

[Kiwon]

It's a misdemeanor violation and is does sound like a law created in reaction to a particular incident.

But if bartenders and airlines are legally responsible to evaluate whether their patrons are too drunk and required to stop serving them because they can be held liable if that person gets into a drunk driving accident then I can't call this law dumb.

A real dumb law is the one resulting in the state of Wisconsin threatening to sue the gas station owner who was offering discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports. The state DEMANDS that he charge more for his gas.

Evil, big oil companies? Hardly. Evil, big government.

[the_idle_threat]

Yeah, I was referring to the law against letting someone else drive your car while intoxicated. Dumb law, but probably not unconstitutional.

The case you're talking about is different: there is a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. But since the constitution uses a term so vague as "unreasonable," the courts have a lot of room for interpretation. It sounds like they define "unreasonable" differently than you do.

I haven't read the case, but at the outset I'm inclined to think you exaggerate a bit in invoking Dred Scott.

[the_idle_threat]

It's a misdemeanor violation and is does sound like a law created in reaction to a particular incident.

But if bartenders and airlines are legally responsible to evaluate whether their patrons are too drunk and required to stop serving them because they can be held liable if that person gets into a drunk driving accident then I can't call this law dumb.

A real dumb law is the one resulting in the state of Wisconsin threatening to sue the gas station owner who was offering discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports. The state DEMANDS that he charge more for his gas.

Evil, big oil companies? Hardly. Evil, big government.

It can still be a dumb law even if some laws are even dumber. :twisted:

[Kiwon]

Hey, drunk drivers are a menace and and I don't mind being stopped at a checkpoint if those who are drinking and driving are pulled over....BUT I have never understood how practically a busy bartender can be held responsible for what patrons do after leaving the bar.

Yeah, on a slow night maybe he can tell whether the person is getting too drunk to function, but still..... After a drunk driving accident though people see it as the bartender serving drinks like loading bullets in a gun that was used in a crime. It's a catch 20/20 for me.

Remember the tiny lady in Chicago who was beaten by the drunk off-duty cop after she tried to stop serving him? What about the Vikings "Love Boat" affair? Those guys took over the bar and would have stomped whoever tried to stop them. Are these bartenders legally responsible for what these guys did after they left their presence?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the law, but I do remember it was inacted in the heyday of MADD. IMHO, laws created in a hasty response to specific incidents often have untenable elements when it comes to enforcement.

[Scott Campbell]

This seems to be going overboard to me. It shows that he likely learned from a past mistake, and didn't want to drive. You can't tell me nobody has gone out with some buddies and given up their keys to their car because they wanted to drink more. Then, you likely get pretty sloshed. How do you have the ability to read how drunk your the "sober" driver got. Now, for making the decision that you aren't going to drive--two people get charged with a car instead of one. Doesn't seem fair to me. Shows me how individual rights keep getting infringed in this country, and individual responsibility is being lost.


I agree with Harv on this. It reminds me of lawsuits against deep pockets. I heard today of an employee that was drunk and driving in a company vehicle with his kids in the backseat. He got in a nasty accident. His kids were hurt because he was driving drunk. And he couldn't sue the company because he was drunk, so of course his kids sued the company.

What a mess.

Should rental car companies be held liable for drunk drivers who crash their vehicles?

[packinpatland]

This seems to be going overboard to me. It shows that he likely learned from a past mistake, and didn't want to drive. You can't tell me nobody has gone out with some buddies and given up their keys to their car because they wanted to drink more. Then, you likely get pretty sloshed. How do you have the ability to read how drunk your the "sober" driver got. Now, for making the decision that you aren't going to drive--two people get charged with a car instead of one. Doesn't seem fair to me. Shows me how individual rights keep getting infringed in this country, and individual responsibility is being lost.


I agree with Harv on this. It reminds me of lawsuits against deep pockets. I heard today of an employee that was drunk and driving in a company vehicle with his kids in the backseat. He got in a nasty accident. His kids were hurt because he was driving drunk. And he couldn't sue the company because he was drunk, so of course his kids sued the company.

What a mess.

Should rental car companies be held liable for drunk drivers who crash their vehicles?

What exactly would he have sued FOR? And what did his kids sue for?

As far as rental cars? PLease.....
At what point to we take responsiblity for our own actions?
Drunk drivers are not drunk because they were forced to drink.

[Guiness]

Yea, at any cost. Like the supreme court ruling that they can have checkpoints where they check everyone regardless of probable cause. That's real American. Some third world countries give the individual more rights than that.

If you can stop me without probable cause at a DWI checkpoint, why stop there? Run a check for warrents, search my car. Make sure I am a legal resident. Just think of all the bad things you could fix if the authorities could stop you for NO REASON other than to verify you are not up to evil things.....


The supreme court that upheld that were hypocritical idiots who should have been removed immeditaely for violating their office.

That's the way we do it in Canada - we call them 'Spot Checks'

You have to give them something to work with. The way the police used to (and would rather continue) to do it would be to pick obviously drunk drivers off the road. Problem was, that led to profiling, and our Supreme court decided it was unconstitutional to do. So the checks have to be random, and include everyone.