Business Occupational License Application: Fill & Download for Free

YES!Reaching foot on your own property should not be confused with the game of baseball, that by virtue of landing on-base, that you are somehow “safe”. Law enforcement can come on to any property and arrest anyone for any crime.Actual Physical Control is defined that someone is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle when they are able to manipulate the vehicle’s controls. The location of your car’s keys is only one factor to consider. his is because actual physical control has developed to include vehicles that are inoperable at the time, so long as the temporary impediment, i.e. the reason the car was inoperable, could be fixed and the person could have then attempted to drive. The offense of APC is really the only law that criminalizes the possibility of someone doing something without having to attempt to do it.Actual Physical Control (APC) | SW&L Attorneys - Fargo, ND'The offense of APC is really the only law that criminalizes the possibility of someone doing something without having to attempt to do it'.A person can be convicted of a crime if there is a possibility that they were in a position to commit the crime. That position is certainly within the front seat of a car, as just one of many prongs to convict a person of drunk driving, that if any are found to be true, then the conviction will stand. The double-standard is this: while sitting in the front seat of the car, or having the keys in the ignition are surely to convict a person of drunk driving, if they are intoxicated - the absence of sitting in the front sear or the absence of keys in the ignition does not exonerate a person either - it merely moves the prosecutor’s process to other areas to pursue conviction.The act of drunk driving, is also a crime based on the possibility that the driver would collide or otherwise crash their vehicle - for which only the last eventuality, is the inherent "crime".Therefore, the reality is this:——————————————If a person, is in a position to operate a car, deemed "actual physical control" of the vehicle, or might be, or could speculated to be...then the scenario is to be conflated with actually driving drunk, for which might be, or could speculated to bea potential crash, that might be, or could speculated to be......injury, death or property damage.This is the only law on the books that only relies upon three layers of mere speculation to establish a crime. This is akin to saying:If you go window-shopping for black clothing and a pointy hatand if you have the money to buy these itemsthen you might be tempted to actually purchase these itemsand if you actually did, then you might be a witchand because all witches are badtherefore, the result might be injury, death or property damage…and therefore, we must prosecute you for practicing witchcraft by taking an interest in potentially being tempted to purchase clothing that witches wear.A drunk driving conviction in a non-moving car, rests on demonizing being in a position to be tempted to drive drunk. “Temptation”, even if not the actual intent of the defendant, the mere perception of temptation becomes the crime.In-essence, taken to a logical-yet-plausible-extreme - any intoxicated person, can, at any time, start driving car. A simple trip to their dresser where they store their keys is not much less of a threshold to prove "actual physical control" of a vehicle - than it is to sit in the vehicle, on private property while intoxicated - which courts HAVE upheld convictions.The line is very thin to differentiate that if a person merely owns a car, that if anywhere near that car, even on private property, that they could in-essence risk exposure to drunk driving. They could be drinking at home, never driven - and if the current overzealous court precedence encroached into 4th Amendment territory - then an intoxicated person could be charged with drunk driving while asleep in their own bed, on the basis that there is a car on the property and keys on the dress - and that on this set of circumstances, it is true that they do have ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE - in a manner almost indistinguishably-different than sitting in the car while drunk, on your own property, and listening to the car stereo. The situational differences are very slight.Only the 4th Amendment, that deems the inside of a person's home to not be subject to illegal searches and seizures, does this effectively protect a person from drinking privately in their own home. If this were not so, then the only way that a person could be allowed to get drunk, is if they did not own a car at all, and did not propel themselves in any manner while intoxicate other than their own feet or by being transported by someone else or via mass transit. In this scenario, Prohibition, while not officially re-established, is for all intensive purposes, the actual effect as a result of overreaching drunk driving laws.Colorado:---------The Colorado Supreme Court opinion in People v. Swain, 959 P.2d 426, 430 (Colo. 1998) is the most up-to-date case on the meaning of “actual physical control”. According to the case, actual physical control is to be determined by the “totality of the circumstances”. The Swain court looked to the following factors to determine if a person was in actual physical control: 1) where the vehicle was found; 2) where in the vehicle the person was found; 3) whether or not the keys were in the motor vehicle’s ignition; 4) whether or not the motor vehicle was running; 5) any other factor which tends to indicate that the person exercised bodily influence or direction over a motor vehicle or not based upon your every day experience. No one factor definitively decides whether or not a person was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.Thus according to Swain, a car doesn’t have to actually be moving down the road for an occupant to be determined to be in actual physical control, and thereafter be convicted of DUI. Whether or not the defendant allegedly drove on a public road, private road, or private property is not a factor. The Colorado Supreme Court held in Motor Vehicle Division v. Warman, 763 P.2d 558 (Colo. 1988) that Colorado’s Express Consent Statute applied to private parking lots.Colorado will charge someone with drunk driving if riding a bicycle drunk per a case in Aspen in 2018.Michigan:---------The Michigan Supreme Court set a legal precedent has been set that someone who chooses to drink and drive on their own property, as long as it is not easily accessible by anyone else, can do so without being arrested. This case is State of Michigan v. Gino Roberto Rea, 2017.In a land mark ruling in July of 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court convicted a man of DWI for operating a motor vehicle in your own driveway. The police can actually come in, investigate and arrest an individual for driving while intoxicated within their own property. In the case of the State of Michigan v. Gino Roberto Rea, the defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, even though he was in his car on his own driveway. Gino Roberto Rea’s case was thrust into the spotlight in 2014 when neighbors complained to the police at least three times, about noise that was coming from his property. In response to the complaints, an officer visited his premises and found Rea intoxicated and attempting to back out of his garage. Even though he reentered the garage, the officer arrested him and was later found to have three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.Nebraska:---------In Nebraska v. McCave, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) does not apply in a personal driveway.The defendant was listening to music in an undriven car parked on his father's driveway while drunk. Officers arriving at the scene noticed McCave was drunk in a car and asked him to take a breath test. McCave refused, saying he had not driven anything. Officers proceeded to pile on charges.Prosecutors argued that the DUI charge applies to a residential driveway because McCave had physical control of the vehicle and that he might have been about to leave. They also insisted McCave's car was on public property because it partially overhung a sidewalk. The high court explained that DUI statues do not apply to a person on private property not open to public access. Past precedent in the state held that an apartment complex parking lot qualified as being open to public access, but the case at hand was different.West Virginia:--------------The West Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that driving under the influence on private property is a crime and that that DUI laws apply to every physical boundary of the state. “The Legislature’s definition of the phrase ‘in this State’ ... extends the reach of our driving-under-the-influence laws to any individual driving a vehicle within the physical boundaries of West Virginia, even if the vehicle is driven only upon private property not open to the general public,” Chief Justice Ketchum wrote.Washington:------------Washington is a state where you can be charged with a DUI on private property. Private property includes locations like parking lots, beaches, parks, and your own driveway. Washington law specifies “a person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state.” The law was further defined to apply “upon all highways and elsewhere throughout the state.” In the case Edmonds v. Ostby, the Court of Appeals of Washington ruled that “elsewhere throughout the state” applied to both public and private property. In that case, Richard Ostby was convicted of DUI after falling asleep in his car in the parking lot of an apartment complex.A bicyclist can’t be convicted for DUI in Washington. See City of Montesano v. Wells, 79 Wash.App. 529, 902 P.2d 1266 (1995).Virginia:---------The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Justin SARAFIN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia that drunk driving does not apply to private property, due to how the state statue is worded: 'Furthermore, while it is indeed true that the legislature did not include the “on a highway” requirement within the express language of Code § 18.2–266'. In this opinion we consider the definition of “operate” and whether such operation must be “on a highway” to sustain a conviction for driving under the influence pursuant to Code § 18.2–266.In another case, Kim v. Virginia, The Virginia Supreme Court ruled reaffirmed their ruling and refused to redefine a parking lot as a "highway" to extend the reach of the implied consent law to cover private property. "We conclude that the presence of 'No Trespassing' signs at every vehicular entry point to the apartment complex necessarily restricts the public's access to the apartment complex as a whole," Justice Cleo E. Powell wrote for the majority. "Such a restriction axiomatically negates any consent to access the roads within the apartment complex that may be implied by the lack of physical barriers or the fact that the roads are named, paved, curbed, bordered by sidewalks and have posted traffic signs."In Villareal v. Commonwealth, No. 0764-13-2 (2013), an off-duty police officer was hired to perform security outside of a restaurant that was part of an outdoor strip mall. He unfortunately got to witness firsthand an intoxicated woman back her car right into his parked car in the mall’s parking lot. He promptly arrested her and she was thereafter charged with driving under the influence (4th offense) and driving on a license suspended due to multiple prior convictions for driving under the influence.The criminal defendant moved the trial court to dismiss her charge of driving on a suspended license under Va. Code § 46.2-391 on the ground that she was not seen driving on a “highway.” The trial court overruled her motion and convicted her of driving on a suspended license.The Virginia Court of Appeals agreed that that Va. 46.2-391(D) is limited in scope to highways and that this outdoor strip mall’s parking lot was not a highway.[2] It accordingly reversed the defendant’s conviction under Va. Code § 46.2-391(D)(3).So what’s the lesson from this case? If you are charged with some offense related to DUI, you need to consider whether anyone saw your drive on a highway in the first place. If they did not, you might be able to wiggle your way out of conviction.Virginia DUI Law: The Private Parking Lot Loophole in ActionArkansas:---------The Arkansas House has recently approved legislation containing a new definition of “motor vehicle” that includes farm equipment such as tractors. A portion of the bill clarifies that operators of farm equipment involved in near-fatal or fatal driving incidents must have their blood alcohol content (BAC) checked just as an automobile driver would. The bill will be known as “Jacob’s Law” after the Arkansas man killed in an alcohol-related farming crash.Kansas:-------Under Kansas law, a DUI is defined as operating or attempting to operate any vehicle while over the legal limit of .08 or while alcohol impaired to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safely driving.To “operate” a vehicle in Kansas means to actually move it forward or backward. “Attempting to operate” a vehicle means to try to move the car and fail. A recent Kansas Supreme Court case found that a driver placing her hand on a gearshift knob and wiggling it was enough to prove an “attempt” to engage the transmission and move the car.Kansas has expressly rejected the notion that to merely sitting in a car that is running or being in “actual physical control” of a car is enough to prove operation or an attempt to operate a car. The public policy in Kansas is that it is best to allow people to sleep in the cars with the heater or air conditioner running as opposed to have them chance driving, or freeze to death.North Dakota:--------------Supreme Court’s interpretation of N.D.C.C. § 39-10-01(2), cases have been upheld when individuals have been in actual physical control of their motor vehicle in a private parking lot, in a private field, and even in their private farmyard.North Dakota recently exempted bicycles and horses from state DUI laws.South Dakota:-------------South Dakota will charge a DUI not only to those operating a bicycle, but also anyone operating a tractor, horse, lawnmower or golf cart while under the influence.California:-----------California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) & (b). Section 655(b) is similar to the (a) count for DUI, and it specifically states, “No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.”In California, Can You Be Charged With DUI While Boating (BUI)? - San Diego DUI Lawyers Blog - June 13, 2013North Carolina:---------------BUI is not limited to motorized boats. G.S. 75A-10 states that a person cannot manipulate any water skis, surfboards, nonmotorized vessel, or similar device while under the influence of an impairing substance.The Consequences of Boating While Impaired in North CarolinaBoating Under the Influence (BUI) is a state law nationwide. In several states not only does this charge apply to the intoxicated driver of any type of vessel such as a boat or jet-ski, but also includes operators of water skis, kneeboards, wakeboards, and similar non-motorized recreational watercraft.Therefore, if someone water skis drunk, they risk being charged with drunk driving.You can get a BUI for paddling a canoe while under the influence. BUI laws pertain to all vessels, from canoes and rowboats to the largest ships. People sometimes let their guard down while “floating” in boats without motors. Passing out and drifting into a shipping lane or into the path of a ski boat doesn’t fall under most people’s definition of “recreation.” Impairment on the water, even in kayaks and small sailing vessels.6 most common rumors about alcohol and boatingIf the vehicle being operated has a drivetrain, then it increases the possibility of being charged with a DUI. Therefore, skateboarding or roller skating drunk, is less likely to face DUI charges - except in Australia. A SKATEBOARDER was charged with driving under the influence in 2011.Several states including California and Virginia have made moves to declare the Segway as a motor vehicle.Thinking about mowing your lawn with a beer in hand? I’d reconsider. Much like the tractor ruling, lawnmowers are also considered vehicles. The same goes for standing mowers, since they both have steering controls. Therefore, a person could be charged with a DUI by mowing their own lawn, if their lawn mower is self-propelled.In-short, any type of propulsion, while drunk, has the potential to result in a drunk driving charge - perhaps not a conviction, but still, a nightmare, depending on how overzealous the arresting officer decides to take things or to pile on charges. This *could* include skateboarding, roller skating, roller blading, ice skating, snow skiing, water skiing, being pulled on a towable or tube behind a boat (the prosecution could argue that the operator of the towable has some discretion of being able to steer), a hoverboard - anything that moves a human being except for you own feet - if you have any control over the propulsion.Let’s not forget something important here:While I think nearly everyone can agree that actually driving a car while intoxicated, and putting the public at-risk is unacceptable, and making this practice illegal is favorable - let’s not forget that there are political factors at work here:The over-encroachment of overzealous drunk driving charges is politically-motivated by MADD, as well as Prohibitionist groups, that while Prohibition was overturned almost a century ago, there is still are active Prohibitionist political groups that, while they cannot outlaw alcohol altogether, they have worked to strengthen drunk driving laws as a covert way of imposing prohibition.In-addition, DA and prosecutors gain favorable political capital from their constituents, as well as there is big money to be made from each drunk driving conviction, not matter how contrived the actual circumstance. If some jurisdictions were able to convict people for walking while drunk and conflate this in to a drunk driving charge, and if there was a body of law to support it, you can be assured that many officers, in-conjunction with edicts from police chief, sheriff, the DA and prosecutors - would insist that patrons in bars remain seated while intoxicated and be physically carried to bed to avoid a drunk driving charge. Obviously, things have not gotten to that point, but if it were possible, some places would take things to that level if left to their own devices - as a covert way of imposing prohibition, by making it so difficult to legally drink without fear of arrest for the most ridiculous and contrived drunk “driving” charge imaginable.Exempt would be mass-transit in which the participant has NO PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, such as elevators, escalators, buses, subways, being a passenger on an airplane, railroads and ski chairlifts.The standard to guarantee prosecution is “actual physical control of the vehicle”. However, disproving the same does not automatically guarantee innocence either.For example, if a person was drunk, listening to their stereo, on private property, with the keys in the ignition and sitting in the driver’s seat - there is a likely chance that they would be charged with DUI.However, simply not having the keys in the ignition and not sitting in the driver’s seat is not enough. If a person is drunk, even if they have their keys in their pocket, or even if the keys are nowhere to be found, and even if they are in the backseat of the car and the wheels are removed - and on private property - I guarantee you, right or wrong, there are still going to be some officers that will charge the occupant of the vehicle with DUI.People have been charged with drunk driving, when they are not even inside the vehicle - if they have the keys and are drunk, and in the vicinity of the car - they can be charged with DUI/DWI. However this standard is more likely to be applied in public situations, and less-applicable on private property.It is not outside of the realm of possibility that someone could be drunk, walking down their driveway, past their car, keys in pocket, when an officer just happens to drive by, who ultimately charges the person with drunk driving - even though the car was never moved, they never boarded the vessel - there mere fact that they COULD HAVE DRIVEN DRUNK is sometimes enough for a conviction. I admit, this would be a bit of a stretch, but it not outside the realm of possibility to demonstrate the ruthless degree that the police will apply DUI/DWI charges, even based on imaginary speculation.Here are the standards that would prevent a person from being charged with a DUI:The person does not board the vessel, i.e., car, mount a motorcycle, etc.The keys are not anywhere near the vehicle or in possession of the person.The car is incidental, no different than if a homeowner was drunk and happened to be near a car that was parked on the street owned by someone else. Since they could not gain access to that car, they would not be charged with DUI.Because the person has no control over the vehicle, then they cannot be charged with a DUI.If all of the above are true, then that person cannot be charged with DUI. If ANY of the above are true, then they can be charged with DUI. I am not asserting a successful prosecution or implying any outcome, but just explaining the scope and degree that an officer can charge someone with DUI.Due to the 4th Amendment, I believe that these standards would only apply on private property with the car parked in the driveway, but if inside a closed garage, that a person would be except.Let’s suppose that you are working on your car and drinking, and the keys are in the ignition and you are listening to the stereo. Even if the engine is out of the car, and even if you are not sitting in the car, and if the car is in the driveway, on private property, a person is still risking getting charged with DUI.If the car is in a closed garage, and an officer happens to raid your house, and you are sitting in the car’s driver’s seat, keys in the ignition, drunk - but the car is in a closed garage and the car has not be driven, you are only listening to the stereo, then I would speculate that a person is protected against unreasonable search and seizure, because the police would have no probable cause to come on to your property and suspect something that they would be unable to observe in-advance.If have read case law and court rulings that support the above. Do not think for a second that life is a game of football, that all is well and good once you score a touchdown and are home, or like in baseball once you land on base. Police know no boundaries and the application of DUI laws are ruthless in terms of how they are applied.People have been convicted of DUI and not even own a car: they have been riding a bicycle drunk, riding a horse drunk or passed out asleep in their car drunk, in the backseat. People have been charged with a DUI for driving a lawnmower drunk.The police will not charge someone with DUI, if they are drunk on their own property, and the keys to their car are on the dresser of nightstand, or on a key holder in the entry room, and they just happen to be walking past their car in the driveway. The police will not charge someone with DUI if they are drunk, with car keys in pocket, but are not in the immediate vicinity of their car, such as in their yard or on their front porch.Boarding the vessel drunk, with or without keys, regardless of whether on public or public property, is grounds to be charged with DUI - unless parked in a closed garage.If you want to sit in your car and drink, perhaps listen to music or such, the only safe place to do so is in a closed garage. While laws such as West Virginia’s DUI law that claim to encompass every square inch of the state, nonetheless, these laws do not override the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.It would be unlawful for a police officer, who is NOT in pursuit, and without any probable cause whatsoever, to go on a fishing expedition, enter your home without consent, permission or a warrant, and on a warrantless search, observe you drinking in your car in a closed garage, and then subsequently charge you with drunk driving. I cannot see how that scenario, one of the few, would pass merit in any jurisdiction. However - if a person was indeed driving, and took cover in their garage after a pursuit as a safe haven, is not likely to protect the defendant from a DUI charge.I am not advocating the extreme ruthlessness of the application of DUI laws, only sharing that they are ruthless in their application, and again, this is based on reading many court cases.If you want to do you own research, I suggest that you google the following:supreme court private property dui parked carIn 2013, I bought a new car - a 2014 Ford Escape. This was such a technological wonder compared to my previous 2005 Ford Escape, that I took the liberty of sitting in my driveway, listening to the radio with the ambient lighting, and enjoy a few scotch to many - and on a few occasions. Fortunately, no police cars happened to be patrolling my neighborhood on those days. Little did I know that I was exposing myself to a drunk driving charge. I was extremely lucky.In 1987, while a student at the University of Missouri - Columbia, I had attended a fraternity party, got drunk, and took refuge in my car for the night - a 1970 MG Midget. I observed police cars at all hours of the night driving past, and simply to avoid any trouble, I ducked below the seats and out of view...just to be on the safe-side. Little did I know at the time, that had I not kept myself out of view, that I would have exposed myself to a drunk driving charge.A few years ago, I heard a story of a basketball player at Mizzou who was charge for drunk driving while sleeping off a night of partying in his parked car - and this peeked my interest in learning more about the law, and to my surprise, I was dumbfounded by what I learned.While I am not a heavy-drinker, and certainly would never intentionally, actually drive a car while drunk, four friends of mine have been convicted of drunk driving, and their lives turned upside down with total costs approaching $30,000.00 each, and with Urine Analysis (UA), community service, being assigned a probation officer and being locked in-jail for 10 days - for their first offense. While none of my friend's convictions were for innocuously sleeping drunk in a parked car or listening to the car stereo while enjoying alcohol in a private driveway, my newfound awareness uncovered various chilling scenarios. Just because you think you are safe and you are doing everything legal does not automatically mean that you are complying with the law. Not knowing the law is no excuse, according to the criminal justice system.Between the statue of limitations and the corpus delicti rule, these prevent me from being prosecuted due to my statements of confession above, as the Columbia, Missouri police would have to somehow prove that 32 years ago, I slept drunk in my MG Midget while a student at MU. Similarly, the Elizabeth, Colorado police would have to somehow collaborate that, while on private property, I drank in my car, in my own driveway. Since I am on good terms with my neighbors, and there is no guarantee than any neighbors observed anything more than me sitting in my car, it is unlikely that I will be getting ratted-out anytime soon.My-contrast, in 1991, a drunk driver killed my boss at United Bank in a high-speed accident that ripped her Chevrolet Caviler in-half in Aurora, Colorado.Yet, I find that the public is not served by over-prosecution of people minding their own business on private property, and this includes drinking. They are being prosecuted for a political crime, not an actual crime.I believe that they best way to prevent drunk driving is to focus on the actual roadways, not private driveways of otherwise law-abiding citizens and turning them into criminals to lay upon the Mayan alter and endure a sacrifice to the MADD gods.A drunk driving conviction is extremely easy to get, bears extremely high consequences. Claims of a person merely gurgling mouthwash and moments later, pulled over, and the officer's breathalyzer incorrectly reading that they are intoxicated - is very troubling and if true, this is a miscarriage of justice.Law that rely on multiple layers of speculation, do not serve the public good.I have the capacity to go to a gun store today, purchase a gun, and commit armed robbery. Yet, I would have to complete all three steps to be charged with robbery. A person does not have to complete any steps to be charged with drunk driving. Merely their capacity to do so, is enough for a conviction.Politics and public opinion are plenty sufficient to create laws that criminalize people, not actions. This is exemplified by stories coming from Ferguson, Missouri, in which citizens of an entire town were effectively criminalized as the law was weaponized by a broad-brush application in which an overzealous police state went on countless fishing expeditions to entrap their citizens into being prosecuting for committing any crime, real or imagine, simply for existing and breathing.There is no shortage of self-appointed know-it-all’s that pass conventional wisdom that make incorrect claims like, "you have to be in the front seat and the keys in the ignition" before being convicted. This false information will be no comfort to any individual who relies on their friend's advice. What I present are actual court rulings and verdicts, not regurgitated conventional wisdom because a friend-of-a-friend said so. These are the facts and the reality. Be aware. Do not go gentle into that good night.Just as I would like to see fewer drunk driving fatalities and injuries - I would also like to see fewer unjust drunk driving convictions as well. No one wins when a person who did not commit an actual crime is forced to face prosecution, conviction and condemnation.Knowledge is power. Avoiding a drunk driving conviction is not as easy as merely limiting yourself to one drink - many people have been convicted of drunk driving, for having consumed one drink or less, so this is not an appeal to protect drunks or alcoholics, but to protect anyone who even uses mouthwash in the morning and then hops into their car.Be aware of the law as written on the books, not told to you by your friends who are passing their own speculative opinion as being fact. The threshold to get arrested for drunk driving, as you can see above, varies wildly from state to state, in terms of what constitutes drunk driving. Many people have had their entire professional careers, futures and families destroyed by one single trumped-up drunk driving charge - when they were not driving a car at all. Do not become a sad and sacrificial statistic. Learn what the laws are and be careful.