Arrested on YOUR OWN PROPERTY for "drunk driving"?

Better not be drinking a beer while cutting the lawn with a riding mower - at least in Michigan.

I mean.................I have strange vehicles pulling in and out of and up and down my driveway on a daily basis!

And my guess is that the State of Michigan doesn't want you driving drunk up and down your driveway where you might injure or kill people who are pulling in and out of and up and down your driveway.

Of course, if you don't live in Michigan this doesn't affect you.

...the State of Michigan doesn't want you driving drunk up and down your driveway...

What is it about the concept of "your driveway" that has you confused?

What is it about the concept of "your driveway" that has you confused?

What part of Michigan State law don't you understand?

No, of course not.

Have you ever admitted to anyone that some laws are bullshit?

Many times. And I've added that those laws should be changed.

I've never advocated for people to break a bullshit law then take their case to social media, hoping to put pressure on the authorities and make money off a GoFundMe page.

I've never advocated for people to break a bullshit law then take their case to social media

Well, it's time. It's time to IGNORE bullshit laws, because there are thousands of them, and lobbyists will make sure they're not repealed.

Juries need to be educated about Jury Nullification and Americans need to IGNORE bullshit laws and Big Stupid Government.

There's no other way to change this crap anymore. It's gone too far. We had enough laws for a civil society a hundred years ago; now they only serve to carve up the stolen loot.

Well, it's time. It's time to IGNORE bullshit laws

And YOU define what laws are bullshit, right? How convenient for you.

I mean, this is all about YOU and YOUR rights and YOUR freedom and screw everyone else, right?

Time for a citizen revolt against arrogant, tyrannical, parasitic pricks.

"No, free Americans need to define bullshit laws, since the politicians won't do it."

If the voters in Michigan wanted to get rid of this "bullshit" driveway law, are are are you telling me they would be unable to do so?

Or are you really saying it would be too haaaard and that it would take worrrrk, and it would be easier to simply flaunt the law.

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/16-17%20Term%20Opinions/153908.pdf

PEOPLE v REA

Docket No. 153908. Argued on application for leave to appeal April 25, 2017. Decided July 24, 2017.

Gino R. Rea was charged in the Oakland Circuit Court with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), MCL 257.625(1). A police officer parked his patrol vehicle in the street in front of defendant’s driveway while responding to noise complaints from defendant’s neighbor. As the officer walked up the straight driveway, defendant backed out of his detached garage and down the driveway. When the officer shined his flashlight to alert defendant that he was in the driveway, defendant stopped his car in the driveway, next to the house. Defendant then put his car in drive and pulled forward into the garage, bumping into stored items in the back of the garage. Defendant, who smelled of alcohol and whose speech was slurred, was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated after he refused to take field sobriety tests; defendant’s blood alcohol level was later determined to be three times the legal limit set forth in MCL 257.625(1)(b). After his arraignment, defendant moved to quash the information. The court, Colleen A. O’Brien, J., granted the motion and dismissed the charge, finding that the upper portion of defendant’s driveway, closest to the garage, was not a place generally accessible to motor vehicles for purposes of criminal liability under MCL 257.625(1). On appeal, the Court of Appeals, GLEICHER, P.J., and SHAPIRO, J., (JANSEN, J., dissenting), affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding that because the general public is not widely permitted to access the upper portion of a private driveway, defendant’s operation of his vehicle while intoxicated did not fit within the purview of behavior prohibited under MCL 257.625(1). 315 Mich App 151 (2016). The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal or take other peremptory action. 500 Mich 871 (2016).

In an opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice MARKMAN and Justices ZAHRA, and WILDER, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:

MCL 257.625(1) of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq., prohibits a person, whether licensed or not, from operating a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated. The phrase “generally accessible” in MCL 257.625(1) is not defined by the Michigan Vehicle Code. In light of the dictionary definitions of these words, “generally accessible” means usually or ordinarily capable of being reached. In contrast to the phrase “open to the general public,” which concerns who may access the location, the phrase “generally accessible to motor vehicles” concerns what can access the location. Accordingly, when determining whether a place is generally accessible to motor vehicles, the focus is not on whether most people can access the area or have permission to use it but on whether most motor vehicles can access the area. In context, MCL 257.625(1) prohibits an intoxicated person from operating a motor vehicle in a place that is usually capable of being reached by self-propelled vehicles. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit driving while intoxicated only in areas actually used by motor vehicles, it would have used different language in the statute. In this case, defendant’s driveway was designed for vehicular travel and there was nothing on his driveway that would have prevented motor vehicles on the public street from turning into it. Accordingly, defendant’s driveway was generally accessible to motor vehicles for purposes of MCL 257.625(1). The Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the OWI charge against defendant.

Court of Appeals judgment reversed, circuit court order of dismissal vacated, and the case remanded.

If the voters in Michigan wanted to get rid of this "bullshit" driveway law, are are are you telling me they would be unable to do so?

There are thousands of these bullshit laws nationwide and we've got better things to do than waste months or years trying to get parasites to push the paperwork on each one.

Let's try another approach; disregard all bullshit laws, make jury nullification commonplace and hasten the collapse of all this crap.

They don't care about us, we don't care about them. Parasites need us a lot more than we need the parasites.

In this case, defendant’s driveway was designed for vehicular travel and there was nothing on his driveway that would have prevented motor vehicles on the public street from turning into it.

Or for fuck's sake!

Nothing like stretching the definition of "public roadway" to its most ridiculous extreme in order to bust a guy on HIS OWN property.

It's downright Orwellian.