Questions are being raised about the handling of a Bartlett, Tennessee police officer who was found off-duty in an accident where she rolled over her jeep, which contained an open liquor bottle. EMTs reportedly smelled alcohol and Officer Teresa Brignole refused a sobriety test. However, the officers at the scene supported her in saying that they did not smell alcohol and she was not charged with DUI.
The internal investigation was unable to be completed bevause Brignole, 43, is on medical leave. Police Chief Gary Rikard has indicated that they may allow a grand jury to look into the matter to clear up public misgivings.
Brignole suffered a laceration on her head and several broken vertebrae in the crash of her Jeep. Two of three officers said that they did not smell alcohol. It is not clear what the third officer stated from news reports.
While she could have crashed the Jeep without the influence of alcohol, the refusal of the test is a bit off-putting for an officer.
This is only the latest controversy over officers in a slew of recent cases involving alleged DUI, here and here and here and here.
For the full story, click here.
First of all she appears to be off duty. Second could they not subpoena the lab works? I am unsure if a TN Subpoena would be enough.
I know she has the right to refuse a PBT, but what about Resisting, Obstructing Opposing the Lawful Commands of a LEO? An Open Container charge seems appropriate under the circumstances.
I don’t know if this is true or urban legend, but I heard a story that alleges to involve a local guy whose name I know and who has a well earned reputation as a hard drinker. Apparently, he was driving under the influence with an open bottle handy at his side on his front seat.
For whatever reason, a police car turned on its flashers to pull him over. The story goes that he jumped out of the car, bottle in hand, and took a long slug of whiskey in full view of the police officers.
He got off unscathed because A) he was not driving at the time he drank from the bottle and B) he blew the breath test off the chart because he had consumed the alcohol so recently, so they couldn’t definitively determine his condition prior to being pulled over.
Ok, I ‘ll say it: All cops are equal but some cops are more equal than others.
Professor:
First of all happy New Year.I am just wondering with the new year upon us would it be possible to maybe once a week or month to have a”I thought you should know”entry where many of us come from different parts of the country and I am quite sure that we all have seen storys that have occured in our areas that don’t make the headlines but none the less are quite interesting.
I guess an open forum so to speak,on these types of events?
rcampbell,
That sounds like an episode of Boston Legal. All the cops have to do is perform a blood test and he’s toast.
nal,
They should have when they went to the hospital. If proper medical procedures were followed.
A “broken” bottle of liquor was at the scene. A broken (contrary to the Professor’s report of “open”) bottle would explain the smell of alcohol.
Duh,
Thats why I said open container. Duh….
But I guess here she decided to Liquor and Roll. Or more to the point she got liquored and rolled.
AY, “An Open Container charge seems appropriate under the circumstances.”
The report does not indentify whether or not the seal was broken; only that a bottle of liquor was broken. I read nothing that would support an open container charge.
Tennessee Open Container Law.
§55-10-416
(a) (1) No driver shall consume any alcoholic beverage or beer or possess an open container of alcoholic beverage or beer while operating a motor vehicle in this state.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(A) “Open container” means any container containing alcoholic beverages or beer, the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed OR the seal of which has been broken; [emphasis added]
(B) An open container is in the possession of the driver when it is not in the possession of any passenger and is not located in a closed glove compartment, trunk or other nonpassenger area of the vehicle; and
(C) A motor vehicle is in operation if its engine is operating, whether or not the motor vehicle is moving.
(b) (1) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by fine only.
(2) For a violation of this section, a law enforcement officer shall issue a citation in lieu of continued custody, unless the offender refuses to sign and accept the citation, as provided in § 40-7-118.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit any municipality, by ordinance, or any county, by resolution, from prohibiting the passengers in a motor vehicle from consuming or possessing an alcoholic beverage or beer in an open container during the operation of such vehicle by its driver, or be construed to limit the penalties authorized by law for violation of such an ordinance or resolution. [Acts 1994, ch. 638, § 1.]
Duh …….
Buddha,
Thanks for citing the statute.
Are you claiming that a broken bottle of liquor at an accident scene would be considered to be a §55-10-416(2)(a) “open container”? I would suggest that the status of the seal needs to be determined.
Duh,
But Jones said two of the three officers at the scene did not report smelling alcohol on the officer. He acknowledged that there was a container of alcohol that broke during the accident.
The above is out of the article.
The status of the seal is irrelevant if the contents are immediately capable of being consumed. See that “or”? It’s an operand. As in two conditions meet the definition of open container, not just the one you desire to get an outcome to protect a drunkard cop behind the wheel and let them walk on a valid charge. Outcome based reasoning is a formal logical flaw. And wishful thinking is not how the law operates.
Buddha,
Wishfilled thinking is how the Cheney Machine works.
I’m sorry. I thought we lived in a country where one (regardless of occupation) is considered innocent until proven guilty. I thought mens rae was still the test for criminal liability.
Buddha, You’re right! A broken bottle of liquor could be consumed. Now all you have to do is establish the method of consumption. Did she use a straw, or did she just lick it up? Did she suck it off her clothing?
A broken bottle of liquor explains the smell of alcohol without consumption.
Speaking os assumption, you just assumed that I presumed this person guilty when I did no such thing. What I did was establish as a matter of law the officer are capable of being charged with the crime as defined contrary to your wishful thinking. Nice to see you compound your logical errors. It’s entertaining.
Guilt is for the judge and/or jury to decided but the charge would be valid as the law is written. That’s whether you like it or not.
“officer is capable of being charged”
multi-tasking can be Hell on verbs
Buddha and AY,
Do you think the legislative intent of the open container statute was to have a person involved in an accident be charged with violation of the law if an unsealed bottle of liquor is broken as a result of the accident? I don’t.
Your claim is that the contents could be consumed. What is the method of consumption?
It does not matter, it was still opened regardless of HOW. If it was some poor white person or some minority they would have been charged. Its like having an empty beer bottle in the passenger area. The cops use this as a bargaining chip. So what is good for this goose is liver….
Open container means opened, Duh
AY,
Was it opened while the engine was still running? You’re gonna need to prove that it was.
pregnant is still pregnant no matter how she got pregnant, Duh
“Was it opened while the engine was still running? You’re gonna need to prove that it was.”
You gonna prove it wasn’t? That’d be some card trick. Because before the Jeep came to an abrupt halt it was in motion. So unless Deputy Drunk was moving it with telepathy the engine was running.
Again, HOW the bottle got opening isn’t the point. It was open by the definition provided in the law.
Pardon, telekinesis.
Damn multi-tasking.
Anonymously Yours
1, January 7, 2010 at 11:12 am
Buddha,
Wishfilled thinking is how the Cheney Machine works.
____
In many more ways than one.
Mr. Buddha,
You have the burden of proof, Sir. You need to demonstrate that the engine was running at the time the bottle was opened, and that the contents were capable of being consumed. If the contents were capable of being consumed (part of the statute) you MUST be able to provide the method of possible consumption.
good one duh, hey in case you wondering Buddah is a legal expert. He doesn’t hold a law degree but that doesn’t matter. He’s been a legal expert in alot of cases.
I don’t have to prove squat other than you are wrong about the validity of the charge. Which I already did. In spades. If you want to try this case, pass the Tennessee bar and go defend the officer.
Again:§55-10-416 (2)(a): “Open container” means any container containing alcoholic beverages or beer, the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed OR the seal of which has been broken.
Opened by the cap, broken open, if you can drink it, it’s open. And you must have never seen any westerns either. Drinking out of broken whiskey bottles is a standard trope.
You object to a valid charge?
I’m not the prosecutor, sport. I don’t have the burden of anything. Take it up with them.
I’m just the guy who showed you were wrong about the validity of the charge. It’s as simple as that.
see told ya, no law degree but he’s an expet
oh and he’s so good at bein an expert he’s never wrong. Kinda makes you wonder why he’s not an astute lawyer. Why is that, oh thats right been building computers since you were eight. I think you would of made a great lawyer.
blah blah blah troll
What part of this don’t you understand? Rhetorical. I have no burden of proof other than proving your buddy was wrong about the nature of the law and its validity in the current circumstance for meriting a charge. Which I did.
I’m not going to litigate a case I’m 1) not being paid for or for 2) charges that have not been filed although they rightfully should be.
You are a simple creature.
You can doubt my credentials all you want, half-wit. Ask the other attorney’s here if I have the same education as they do. Start with Bob, Esq, mespo and Mike Appleton. If you still doubt it, ask the Professor.
Seriously, you are just sounding more Wayne every day. Which is both funny and sad at the same time.
You’re right, bdaman.
Aww, isn’t that sweet. The dancing monkey has a playmate.
you sure are defensive, as to your education and it being equal, I would make the deduction that seeing how your not a licensed attorney that education was a waste, except for bullying people here.
Awwww. That’s just adorable! You think your powers of deduction are functional!
Buddha,
You’re the one claiming that a charge of violating :§55-10-416(2)(a) would be valid. This places the burden on you to prove that the engine was running at the time the bottle was opened. AND that it was possible to consume the contents after it was opened.
I’m glad that most police officers, prosecutors, and judges, have a better understanding of legislative intent than you do.
It’s one thing to state, as AY did, that she should have been charged with violating the open container law based on Professor Turley’s statement that an open container was found at the scene, but quite different when that container was not opened by breaking the seal. It has to do with mens rae.
Legislative intent is a crap argument. The statue is clear and unambiguous.
The vehicle was in motion before the wreck. Physics still apply. Jeeps don’t turn over on their own. What is present here is room to possibly charge those blue brotherhood clowns with obstruction.
There is no men rea component to this statute but if you really want to go that way, why wasn’t the bottle in the glove compartment or some other area segregated from the vehicle cabin? You could have intended the bottle to be decorative, but if it was opened by breakage or by the seal, it’s still open which means capable of consumption even if you had to lick it off the floor. The charge is “Open Container”, not drunk driving. By the letter of the law, the container was open.
Why is it your not a practicing lawyer, man your good, you could be famous. Must of done somthin real bad. Who can I ask about that.
Here Buddha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Maybe you will learn something about our legal system.
Did the bottle break while the engine was running? Prove it!
The statute requires that the engine be running (vehicle moving or not). I would say that there is no reason to put an “unopened” bottle of liquor (one that was given to me at a Christmas Party, or that I had just purchased from the store) in a separate compartment (therefore treating it like an “opened” bottle, but I guess it is possible that some cop, some prosecutor, and some judge could be as ridiculous as you are.
You’ve piqued my interest. Do Bob, Esq. and Mespo (or even Prof. Turley) think that a bottle of liquor, broken as the result of an accident, meets the criteria to deem this to be a valid charge?
What’s wrong with this picture? If mens rae and actus reus are no longer components, how do you claim due process?
Bdaman,
Let us not get to personal. Come on, I am a licensed attorney as well. For what ever reason someone chooses not to do what they get education for has nothing to do with the subject at had.
Also, the info about the bottle came from the article link.
AY,
In response to your statement directed at bdaman:
“Also, the info about the bottle came from the article link.”
I gave you the benefit of doubt. Your statement would indicate that you were aware that the only reason the bottle was considered to be “open” is that it broke during the accident.
Do you, as an attorney, think that a bottle, considered to be open because it broke during an accident, should result in a charge of violating the open container law?
Duh,
It is a gimme charge. But the COPS would never do that to their own. If it were you or I, Hell yes.
It does not matter how it got opened. Tennessee I do not believe is an Intent State. So, what is meant is if you want to know what the purpose of a law is, you have to go back and review what the committee notes, hearings, memos etc to find out what they intended for the Statute to accomplish.
Also, my feelings aside, when it comes to the Vehicle code of most states you give up certain rights. That said, say you had 4 people and one bag of dope. It cannot be proved who owns the dope. Some states now are charging all 4 with possession and if the registered owner is not in the car they will impound the car for transporting illegal narcotics. They try and make it very expensive for everyone.
“So, what is meant is if you want to know what the purpose of a law is, you have to go back and review what the committee notes, hearings, memos etc to find out what they intended for the Statute to accomplish.”
But Buddha claims that legislative intent is irrelevant. Which is it?
Without mens rae and actus reus we have no due process.
I’ve never seen anyone charged with open container due to a broken bottle. In many jurisdictions you can’t even have an open container in public. I have trouble believing that any rational person would consider the accidental breakage of a bottle to be in violation of the statute.
Did you intend to speed? Was it an accident that you speed or just got caught. They are General Intent, you actions set up the consequences. The Vehicle code as a general rule is General Intent. What you learn about AR and MR is school is just that you learned it. The cops should understand it but are not as bright as you’d think.
AY,
“It is a gimme charge. But the COPS would never do that to their own. If it were you or I, Hell yes.”
Could you provide some clairfication? What do you mean by “it is a gimme charge”? Do COPS never make the charge on their own? Are you suggesting that this person, if the bottle was broken as a result of the accident, would not be charged unless prompted by a prosecutor? If it were you or I, would we be cited, or would we not be cited?
AY,
I’m not looking for an affirmative defense. When driving a motor vehicle you take the responsibility for controlling the vehicle. Defective speed indication would be an affirmative defense.
A bottle breaking during an accident would be beyond the control and responsibility of the actor. That’s why we generally look for the seal to be broken. The statute also provides that the contents must be able to be consumed. Chances are, the contents could not be consumed after the bottle was opened by breakage. Per the statute “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. What method made the consumption possible? Was it possible to consumed it by soaking it up with a shirt and sucking on the shirt?
badtroll,
It’s called “a choice”. I’ve told the story here long ago of why I walked away from the profession. But it was indeed a choice. If I wanted, I could go take a bar exam and get a license again. I simply don’t want to, although a family friend recently tempted me to take the Hawaii Bar. Then I came to my senses. The main reason is that aside from the most excellent attorneys who frequent this site, I find most attorneys to be insufferable venal bores pretty much 24/7. The profession attracts a lot of greedy people who don’t really care about the law, just their pocketbooks. There are a lot more John Yoo’s than Jonothan Turley’s and our legal system suffers for it. Life is short. I decided to surround myself with a higher quality person on a daily basis.
Duh,
You prove it. You’re the one who wants to litigate. I just pointed out the charge would be valid. Contrary to your first ridiculous assertion:
“I read nothing that would support an open container charge.”
Except the entirety of the statute which you then proceeded to try to distort to get your outcome based reasoning to work. If the legislators wanted the law to say “An open container is legal as long as no one in the cabin intended to consume it” they’d have worded it that way, but since we don’t have the Psychic Brain Police, they didn’t. They wrote the law the way they did instead. And as far a laws go, that one is pretty clear. Open is open. Why it’s open is beside the point. Still. You keep on wishing though.
The bottom line here is cops broke procedure and lied to protect a fellow officer. All this argument about a charge not filed is you pulling you pud trying to rationalize letting a cop get away with a suspected crime, a suspected crime with enough evidence present to merit a charge – potential verdict notwithstanding.
You know. Charge. Trial. Verdict. That whole due process thing.
Thank you for your explanation, I just like given you a hard time.
No Buddha, Open is not open (according to the statute). It must be open in such a manner as to be available for consumption. Were the contents available for consumption? The statute says “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?
The intent of the statute was not to charge people for liquor bottles that break open as the result of a MV accident.
Those are all matters for the trier of fact. You want to quibble about how they could consume it when the statute says simply “immediately capable of being consumed” which means able to get from where it’s at to the mouth. I’ve seen alcoholics spill a drink an lap it up like a dog. Literally suck it out of the carpet (which is a pathetic sight but I digress). The method of consumption is not the point. The capacity to consume is the point.
In addition, the legislature DID intend for you to transport liquor someplace other than in the cabin – (2)(B) An open container is in the possession of the driver when it is not in the possession of any passenger and is not located in a closed glove compartment, trunk or other nonpassenger area of the vehicle.
Well what do you know! There were no passengers! Guess whose possession it was in absent being out of the cabin then?
Open
Container
The container was open. How it got that way is irrelevant still.
Again, you want to litigate. I merely want to charge. There is enough evidence to charge as the statute is written. Deal with it. Go to court if you want to litigate. This is a blog.
98% of Canadians say “Oh Shit!” before plowing into the ditch on a slippry road.
The other 2% are from Calgary and they say “Hold my beer and watch this…”
Sorry Buddah you are wrong and Duh is right.
he’s got you right here,
The statute says “the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed”. Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?
The intent of the statute was not to charge people for liquor bottles that break open as the result of a MV accident.
admit defeat and walk away, your wrong but your ego wont allow you to admit it.
90% of the men in the United States masturbate in the shower, 10% sing, do you know what they sing?
I would admit defeat were I defeated. Your wishful thinking asides as well, bdatroll.
“Were the contents immediately capable of being consumed? Where were the contents after the bottle broke? Where the contents on the soil or the road?”
Both matters for the trier for fact. At trial.
Open is open regardless of how it got open. Michigan passed a statute to allow for open bottles of wine to be exempted from the laws pertaining to Open Containers. I guarantee that a drunk that has spilled whiskey will lick a counter to get it off. You fool yourself if you think not.
Let me know if you ever catch your tail. We wouldn’t want the facts to get in the way of making a determination as to the validity of the charge.
And I don’t want your inability to read a plain face statute get in the way of you protecting a cop from being charged. The only tail chasing is yours.
“90% of the men in the United States masturbate in the shower, 10% sing, do you know what they sing?”
“Hold my beer and watch this” ?
“You know the score, pal. You’re not cop, you’re little people!”
Bryant – Blade Runner
AY,
Michigan passed the law to exempt bottles that were open (the seal was broken). You should ask them why they didn’t create an exception for bottles that were accidentally broken open.
The open container laws pertain to open bottles of consumable alcohol. Break the seal, pop the cork, pull the tab. It’s considered to be open. Your beginning to sound Woo-ish. It is ridiculous to consider a bottle broken during an accident to be an open bottle in violation of the statute.
Scenario: An earthquake, and $10K in bottles of wine were destroyed. Insurance company will only cover unopened bottles of wine. Are the broken bottles of wine considered to be open bottles of wine?
The wording is IMO plainly conditional on the judgment of the LEO responders.
“(A) “Open container” means any container containing alcoholic beverages or beer, the contents of which are immediately capable of being consumed OR the seal of which has been broken;”
The likely-hood of an accident victim to immediately consume an alcoholic beverage from a broken bottle (if the seal is not broken) is a judgment that has to be made in the affirmative by the responding LEO before a citation is written. A beer can, opened by a gash in it’s side in an accident but with its tab intact may be immediately drinkable but is it reasonable to assume that the driver has been drinking or would drink a beer in that fashion? It’s entirely a judgment call.
The totality of circumstances regarding the beverage container at the accident site has to be assessed and a judgment drawn by the LEO’s on the scene. It must pass the common-sense test at the time of the accident to the satisfaction of the LEO responders on the scene. Thereafter it has to pass the common sense test to a judge or jury to be upheld.
IMO a citation for a broken bottle with seal intact, as with a can, gashed or torn but with an intact tab, should not result in an automatic citation due to the conditional nature of the statute if the responding LEO doesn’t judge it to be warranted.
Michigan passed a statute to allow for open bottles of wine to be exempted from the laws pertaining to Open Containers.
Several states did, anybody know why?
Not you Buddah you know everything.
Two days in a row Lottakatz, very well said, three cheers mate
LK,
Responding LEOs.
That lied and obstructed.
Trier of fact.
When is a donkey spelled with 1 letter?
When it’s “U” Jackass
You are absolutley correct BIL, in fact in Ontario, being stopped by police with any alcohol within reach while driving will buy you a fine. This is the case whether the bottle has been opened or remains in the bag that it left the store in. The question to ask is why this officers’ blood/alcohol levels were not tested during her hospital visit. That should be standard procedure when one is suspected of DUI, it certainly is here, unless one is fortunate enough to have many alies wearing blue!
On a side note, I think it is incredibly admirable for one to walk away from a career that one has worked so hard to build on principle and moral belief.
Simple it was sold as an economics bill of goods for the merchants and wine industry.
That is correct
Canadian Eh! this is America. What happens in Canada stays in Canada.
Speaking of which, for all who likey, you can now go to a brothel in Vegas and pick the man of your choosing.
“You are absolutley correct BIL, in fact in Ontario, being stopped by police with any alcohol within reach while driving will buy you a fine. This is the case whether the bottle has been opened or remains in the bag that it left the store in.”
Does the law in Canada prohibit the transportation of alcohol, sealed or unsealed, in the passenger compartment? What province do you live in? I’ve transported sealed alcohol in the passenger compartment. I even showed them the bottle. No problem.
Canadian Eh! “…in Ontario, being stopped by police with any alcohol within reach while driving will buy you a fine.”
******
I don’t have a problem with that kind of law at all. I always store bottles of any kind in the ‘trunk’ or, if I don’t have the passenger/storage partition up, under a big old comforter I keep in the back of the car as a safety measure- I don’t want pickle jars or beer/liquor bottles flying around the car in an accident. I’d hate to be killed by a flying jar of bread and butter pickles or Bailey’s Irish Cream.
———————
“The question to ask is why this officers’ blood/alcohol levels were not tested during her hospital visit. That should be standard procedure when one is suspected of DUI”
*******
That’s the real question that needs to be answered.
Duh,
To answer your question…..It is illegal to transport beverage alcohol in a motor vehicle, a motorized snow vehicle or a boat unless the beverage alcohol is in a container that is unopened and the seal unbroken, or unless the beverage alcohol is packaged in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to anyone in the vehicle. I work often with Police, and have been told that alcohol, during transport in a motorized vehicle, must be in the trunk as this is the only way that it is aboslutely not accessible to anyone in the vehicle. If you’re interested, our laws with regards to alcohol and transport, also prohbits the transport of alcohol on a personal watercraft unless the craft is considered a ” house boat “.
Most importantly, with regards to blood/alcohol testing, it is illegal here to refuse to blow into an approved screening device, although you do have the right to refuse a roadside sobriety test and to divulge the amount of alcohol that you have had before driving.
I don’t know where in Canada you were driving when you showed the officers your bottle….Quebec perhaps, but the above is Canadian / Federal law. It is taken seriously in Ontario.
Wow! What a thread this was! Buddha, I think Bdaman and his new friend are going to goad you into coming out of retirement from the Bar. I agree with yours and AY’s take. Bdaman is your new name Ella?
What’s the difference between the police and an organized crime gang?
The uniforms.
ETS,
In some cases that is a correct statement.
Yep thats me Ella, Duh, Wayne, Jim Burns, Buena Vista Mall, Flash, Bdatroll, Bdalier, Bdaloser, Bdabigot, Give me a little bit I think of some more.
Bdaman,
so you admit it??! Do you have to change clothes when you blog as Ella?
Canadian Eh,
“I don’t know where in Canada you were driving when you showed the officers your bottle….Quebec perhaps, but the above is Canadian / Federal law. It is taken seriously in Ontario.”
It was Ontario. I was on my way to Rainy Lake.
I have searched but was unable to find any Canadian/Federal Law concerning open container. I found Provincial Law, but none that would interfere with carrying an unopened container in the passenger compartment. From what I could find, it is permissable for passengers to have an open container.
Could you please give a link to a website that would support your claim? It may be that you were misinformed.
I think Ella is selling handbags or something. You see that sort of stuff in lots of blogs. Its a “bot”. An ad-bot.
An evil ad-bot.
Duh,
http://www.agco.on.ca/en/t.tools/t3.1.general.alcohol.faqs.html
look at point # 7 on that link and you will find the support for my first claim. Additionally, you can also find more support for my claims at http://www.canadianlawsite.ca
The AGCO is the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
Eniobob:
I like your idea of a free for all entry for people to posting their favorite stories from the week. We could have a Free For Free Friday Entry but I am not sure how to allow everyone to post directly. One possibility is to have people send me the stories and I can link them with attribution or we can use the comment section and I can cut and paste the links into the body of the posting. Any suggestions?
Speaking of bad cops . . . news from Arizona:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/01/07/20100107joe-arpaio-grand-jury.html
Professor,
WordPress has differing levels of configurable user access, but I suspect that’s way more work than you either want or need.
In the alternative, might I suggest a separate submission thread like the corrections thread just so we won’t get in the way of He Who Must Be Kept Happy by cluttering up the corrections thread with unrelated links.
Canadian Eh,
Per the link you provided:
http://www.agco.on.ca/en/t.tools/t3.1.general.alcohol.faqs.html
“7. Under what circumstances is it illegal to transport beverage alcohol?
It is illegal to transport beverage alcohol in a motor vehicle, a motorized snow vehicle or a boat unless the beverage alcohol is in a container that is unopened and the seal unbroken, or unless the beverage alcohol is packaged in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to anyone in the vehicle.”
There is nothing illegal about carrying a “sealed” container of alcohol in the passenger compartment. I wonder what the law means by “fastened closed”. Does that mean locked? Is “zipped-up” the equilivant of “fastened closed”?
Duh,
If ever driving in Ontario again, go ahead, take your chances and drive with a bottle beside you in the passenger seat. Living here, I will continue to pack mine safe & sound in the trunk, where I know it’s supposed to be.
You have done a phenomenol job of steering away from the real question that this article poses however. Why was this officer not checked for blood/alcohol level as she should have been considering there was spilled alcohol at the seen?