I have arrested hundreds of people for DUI in my 28 year Law Enforcement career. Plenty were passed out in vehicles with the engines running. The DA files those cases and most take plea deals or don’t and then get convicted. Jordan made the decision to drink to the point inebriation. He then made the decision to bring an open container into his vehicle and start the engine (we don’t know if he drove there or if he drank elsewhere and walked to where his car was parked. Let’s be real though, it was likely the former). I’ve seen quite enough people killed by drunk drivers to worry about whether a kid with an obvious problem with alcohol INTENDED to drive drunk. Even in ultra liberal LA County he’d get convicted. In Iowa? C’mon now.I understand that part. My point is SOLELY about what a jury would decide based on that evidence. Also, he didn't drive the vehicle, so your wording doesn't apply here. The charge is based on him "controlling" the vehicle. I would think a jury could see that he never intended to drive it and "controlling" the vehicle is vague as hell when all he may have done was turn it on so the climate was comfortable enough to sleep it off in.
Would you convict someone of a DUI if the defense clearly proved he NEVER had intent to move that car whatsoever and all he ever did was turn the AC on to sleep until he was fit to drive?
As far as help goes, I have never said he didn't need it. If he wasn't drinking he wouldn't be in this situation even if he never was going to actually drive while drinking. I guess I may actually be different than most, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to punish someone so harshly for trying to do the right thing when drinking...