ILNews

Justices: No drunk driving on private property

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A person driving drunk can be arrested even if they are driving on private property, including their own property, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court Wednesday.

The high court reversed the trial court's grant of Adam Manuwal's motion to suppress evidence following his arrest for two Class A misdemeanors, operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.15 or more, after driving an all-terrain vehicle on his own property and crashing. Police suspected Manuwal had been drinking and had blood drawn at the hospital.

After the trial court granted Manuwal's motion to supress, the state dismissed the charges and brought this appeal in State of Indiana v. Adam L. Manuwal, No. 50S05-0805-CR-269, pursuant to statutory authority. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The state argued the language of Indiana Code Sections 9-30-5-1(b) and -2 isn't restricted to just vehicles driven on public thoroughfares and Indiana's interest in protecting citizens extends to private property. Manuwal argued the caselaw that has applied the statutes prohibiting drunk driving to operating on private property only where it's probable the driver might come in contact with the public shouldn't be extended to a driver's use of their vehicle on their own property.

After examining the statutes at issue in this case, the justices unanimously agreed regardless of where a defendant's driving occurred, even on his or her own property, the state can charge him or her with intoxicated driving offenses pursuant to I.C. Sections 9-30-5-1(b) and -2, wrote Justice Brent Dickson.

In addition, the Court of Appeals has applied statutes prohibiting operating a vehicle while intoxicated to driving on private property. The Supreme Court declined to address Manuwal's argument that extending the OWI provisions to his own property violate his constitutional rights because he didn't support or develop his claim, and remanded the cause to the trial court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT