Passengers Guilty for their Drivers?

A case out of New Mexico is raising the eyebrows of attorneys and legal scholars nationwide.  A passenger in a vehicle allegedly driven by a drunk driver is being prosecuted for vehicular homicide on the theory that he was an accomplice to the driver driving intoxicated.

According to this news report, Alfred Lovato - a former State Police Officer - was a passenger of a vehicle that struck an intoxicated pedestrian who walked out in front of a vehicle.  The pedestrian died of his injuries, and the driver was convicted of DWI.  The driver's conviction has since been overturned, and he is awaiting a new trial.

If we start locking up passengers for the actions and choices of their drivers in DWI cases then the government will have unlimited opportunity to start locking up passengers and others in a whole array of new areas.  Can a passenger be found guilty of speeding?  Theoretically, it is possible.  Let's say you and a friend are on a cross-country trip where you and he split the cost of the trip.  Your friend gets a speeding ticket in Oklahoma, another in Kansas, and gets pulled over in Nebraska.  Could Nebraska courts hold that you were an accomplice to his speeding because you were a passenger and cost sharing?  If the theory in New Mexico stands, you bet Nebraska could make that claim stick.  You pulled over for gas and did not get out of the vehicle.  Thus, you acted in concert - you impliedly consented because you did not remove yourself from the continuing crime spree.  Yes, speeding is a crime.

It sounds far fetched doesn't it?  Yet, misdemeanor crimes are the number one way government fill budget shortfalls through the criminal justice system.  People are not apt to spend thousands of dollars fighting misdemeanor crimes.  It is cheaper to simply cop a plea that does not require anything more than paying a fine. 

Furthermore, can the bartender who serves more than a government allotted amount of alcohol be held liable for manslaughter under this government theory?  So far those cases have not been successful, but it is more than plausible to think that if New Mexico wins this case that bartenders may very well be on the hook if they serve someone alcohol that they knew or should have known was too intoxicated to drive, and had a reasonable belief that such a person would drive after leaving their establishment.

Think that is outrageous?  Ask the proprietor's of the Fox and Hound at 12651 Vance Jackson Road, San Antonio, Texas.  According to sources familiar with that area the San Antonio police have been patrolling that area heavily and stopping people who are leaving area bars at night to conduct DWI investigations.  Fox and Hound was fined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission over $260,000 in 2011 for selling alcohol to intoxicated persons statewide.  Accordingly, they have began limiting the number of alcoholic drinks they serve patrons within set time frames.  Is it much of a stretch for a plaintiff's lawyer or prosecutor to make the case that such violations amount to accomplice liability?  I don't think so. 

Our system of justice is based on personal accountability for criminal behavior.  We don't hold children guilty for the crimes of their parents.  We shouldn't hold passengers guilty for the crimes of their drivers either.