Matthew Russotto
Probably yes. However, since the penalties are pretty close in terms of severity, the prosecution will usually pursue the alcohol-related ones since the principle is more clear and the consequences equal or greater.
AFAIK, it's not statutory language in most states. It's what the courts have come to define as 'operating'. You usually find that the definition expands wherever you have the most enterprising drunks.
Head's apparently commonsense definitions were long ago distorted by creative drunks who would run home after crashing their cars, jump into the back seat to pretend they're sleeping, or sit in the car in the bar's parking lot until the cops down the street leave. There have even been some high profile cases where a cop waited until the drunk satisfied Dave's requirements (actually driving down the street after being observed leaving a bar highly intoxicated) and by then, it was too late. Drunk speeds off, doesn't stop for pursuing officers, crashes into innocent victims, and kills them. From a public safety viewpoint, it makes more sense to stop them *before* they do any harm and to hold them responsible for any harm they either *do* cause or are logically *likely to* cause.
In the appropriate case, the *court* and the *prosecution* is able to back down and consider lesser charges such as public intox, but it's the charging officers' *job* to write the citation whether it's a slam-dunk winner or not. That's all that happened here. The prosecutor has to pursue it for awhile, at least. So let's see what the ultimate outcome of the case is.
It's not often that I'm on the side of rigorous enforcement of overreaching law enforcement, but with drunken driving, I understand and accept it. Even on the rare occasions when I will defend one, I figure that being dumb enough to get caught driving under the influence dovetails nicely with my philosophy: "Stupidity should hurt." -- C.R. Krieger (Still intolerant of stupidity)
