We'll get the easy one out of the way first:
La-Z-Boying while intoxicated? Yep:
The operator of a La-Z-Boy chair converted into a motorized vehicle -- complete with a stereo and cup holders -- has admitted that he crashed the piece of furniture after leaving a bar in Proctor, Minn., extremely drunk.
Dennis LeRoy Anderson, 61, of Proctor, pleaded guilty Monday to hopping on the chair on the night of Aug. 31, 2008, after visiting the Keyboard Lounge, then crashing into a more traditional vehicle in the parking lot. Anderson's blood-alcohol content was 0.29 percent, more than three times the legal limit for driving in Minnesota.
There's even a pic:
It has headlights, a side mirror, and of course, a cup holder. Everything your suspended-license driver needs to get back and forth to the bar. Unfortunately for numbnuts, state law is pretty clear that if you are in control of anything that is motorized and drive it drunk, they can nail you. I suppose he gets an "A" for creativity, but he's still an idiot. Is it cruel of me to kind of hope that the steering mechanism got him where it counts when he crashed?
The second case is that a Minnesota woman has been charged with a felony that can land her seven years in prison for being in possession of...bong water? Yep.
It seems that Minnesota law says:
The statute defines a drug "mixture" as "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity."
The Rice County woman had her home searched in 2007 and police found a bong with 37 grams of liquid in it that tested positive for meth. On the surface it sounds pretty ridiculous to charge somebody with a felony that can land them seven years in jail for possessing bong water, but:
"...a narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later."
Seriously? I have no personal knowledge to point to here, but even if true, I can't believe that is anything more than the pathetic desperation of an addict and not true drug possession as intended by the Legislature. Just from an average citizen with no legal training perspective, it seems to me that this situation is ridiculous. So who is to blame?
I have trouble faulting the Legislature for the wording of the statute as many drugs are cut or diluted. Can that practically be narrowly defined for every controlled substance? I have my doubts. And I don't think I can blame the Minnesota Supreme Court for following a strict interpretation of the law, at least in this stage of the process. Technically the prosecutor can charge that woman in that manner. That's what the law says. And I also wonder if overturning that statute would have wreaked all sorts of havoc with other cases that have already been decided.
No, I think the problem here is the prosecutor in this case is abusing his/her discretion for some reason. With the caveat that there may be more here than meets the eye, this seems like an example of one bit of clever lawyering in one case that could pervert justice down the road for a whole bunch more cases unless the Legislature acts. I don't smoke pot, but can you imagine a prosecutor having the ability to send someone to jail for seven years because, even though they possess no actual pot, they have felony amounts of bong water in their possession? It sounds insane, but I guess it's possible now.
Recent Comments