In looking further into Mr. Fleck’s situation (he was in his apartment’s parking garage, apparently), there are other even more ridiculous situations surrounding drunk-driving related incidents in Minnesota.

http://www.startribune.com/local/82268187.html?page=2&c=y
This article comments on a drunk-driving related charge for a man who was drinking in his home before going to his car to listen to his stereo. While that is absurd, he was in “physical control” of the car.

Another man was trying to operate a vehicle as it was being towed and still got a drunk-driving related charge.

With all due respect Mr. Fischer, the logic behind your argument is flawed.
One whom has keys in their pocket in a bar, even if intoxicated, is not in a position to “exercise dominion…” because they are not inside the vehicle. That would be like trying to argue that carrying bullets in your pocket is attempted murder in the absence of a gun.

As for motive, motive is irrelevant in instances such as this. It’s all about intent [how]. The crime for which Fleck was being tried was Driving Under The Influence, which, as the law is written, doesn’t take motive [why, he was "driving" drunk] into account [even if the person wasn't even driving].

I do think that perhaps a new law should be written for cases such as this, to avoid confusion [ex. murder vs. assault with a deadly weapon]. I will agree that it seems absurd that one can be found guilty of “driving under the influence” simply by proving intent to “potentially” drive under the influence. I do however understand the ruling considering the facts of the case, with the law as it’s written, and the precident which was set in 1992.