In the recent opinion handed down to Defendant Michael Cyr, the appellate court upheld is DUI conviction in a 5-0 decision.

This case is troubling because of the facts. Cyr was arrested in February 2005 in a parking lot. He had used his remote starter to turn on his car, then simply sat in the drivers seat, without ever putting the key in the ignition. Although the facts don’t stipulate, he probably was just trying to keep warm, what with the winter and all.

This case is troubling because of the reasoning and precedent that it sets. Chief Justice Chase Rogers wrote, “In starting the engine of his vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle.” (emphasis added) See any problem with that? Why stop with simply turning on the car? Why not extend to buying alcohol in a liquor store? After all, you have both your car keys/car AND alcohol, both of which set in motion the power to be a drunk driver.

You may dismiss my logical extension, but it isn’t that far fetched. The key is that this case removes that actual illegal act from the equation. In legal speak, this would be called the actus reus - the proscribed act. With drunk driving, the actus reus would be driving, and drunk would be necessary condition along with that. Here, however, there is no actus reus! No act! Instead, you have the path along which the act could occur. Or it could not occur. And therein lies the problem.

The pendulum has swung to the extreme for drunk driving legal interpretations. Perhaps it is time to swing back to a more reasonable level…