Did the Atlanta cops trick Rayshard Brooks into driving while intoxicated?
Last edited Sun Jun 14, 2020, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
On the video, the officer is shown waking Brooks up, and having him get out of the vehicle. Then he talks to Brooks, who acknowledges drinking but not to excess -- and says a friend had dropped him off there. And then the officer asks Brooks to get back into the car and move it, which Brooks does.
At that point Brooks is arrested for a possible DUI. According to the first site below, being behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition and the radio turned on would have constituted being in control of the vehicle. According to the second site, a drunk person would have had to operate the vehicle in some way while under the influence. It wouldn't have been enough to charge him for sitting under-the-infuence in a car that was turned off.
I have seen no evidence that Brooks's keys were in the ignition, have you? And why did the cop ask a drunk driving suspect to drive the car? This can't be standard police procedure -- directing a suspected drunk person to drive! What if Brooks had tried to escape in the vehicle?
https://www.blacklawoffices.com/what-is-dui-in-georgia
There are many different ways that a driver can be charged with DUI in the state of Georgia.
You must be driving or in actual physical control of a moving vehicle in order to be charged. Under Georgia law, the offense can occur on public roads or on private property. Being behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition and the radio or heater on may be enough to qualify as "actual physical control."
https://www.teamdui.com/what-constitutes-operating-a-vehicle/
Operation or use of a vehicle constitutes some of the elements of a DUI, but what is meant by “operating a vehicle?” The common law definition of “operation” usually includes the actual physical handling or manipulation of the electrical or mechanical controls of a motor vehicle, including the starting of the vehicle’s engine. It is important to note that a vehicle does not have to be in motion to be operated. However, there must be evidence that the defendant exercised some control or manipulation over the vehicle, such as steering or braking, even if the vehicle is in motion. Evidence that the defendant was inside a moving but non-running vehicle, without additional supporting evidence, does not constitute sufficient evidence of “operating” the vehicle. However, it has been held that grabbing the steering wheel and stepping on the accelerator of a vehicle constitutes “operating” the vehicle even if another person is driving the vehicle.
The “operation” of a vehicle requires the showing of an intent by the defendant to set the vehicle in motion. The starting of the vehicle’s engine usually constitutes the showing of such an intent, and a person found alone in a non-moving vehicle whose engine is running is usually held to be “operating” the vehicle, even if the person was found asleep or unconscious. Even if a vehicle whose engine is running is temporarily disabled or stuck in mud or snow, the person found behind the wheel may nevertheless be found to be “operating” the vehicle.
Some courts, it should be noted, have held that a person found asleep behind the wheel of a non-moving vehicle whose engine was running was not “operating” the vehicle for purposes of a drinking-driving statute. In most cases of this sort, the defendant’s vehicle was found parked in a parking lot or similar area and not on or next to the highway, thus lessening both the inference that the defendant recently drove the vehicle and the intent to set the vehicle in motion. As an example, a case in Kentucky in which a defendant was found asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle whose engine was not running but whose key was in the ignition and turned to the “on” position, was held not to be “operating” the vehicle.
= new reply since forum marked as read
How did he get there?
He was questioned at length for observation and to try to get his story, maybe an admittance. They have plenty of reason to believe he operated the vehicle while under the influence.
On edit just to be clear: THIS is in NO way justifying Brooks getting shot. NO way should he have been shot at, or killed.
Good luck with this though. You are fighting a storm tide. 
