We know that when you have sex with a clearly intoxicated and incapacitated person, you can be found guilty of rape, because they can't actually consent. What the majority and dissent disagree about in this opinion is whether, on that same theory, you can also be found guilty of kidnapping, on the theory that spiking their drink and getting them drunk means they also couldn't consent to being "moved" to your vehicle.
Justice O'Leary writes the majority opinion and says "No, they're two different crimes; for kidnapping, you need some level of force, not just deception." Justice Bedsworth authors the dissent and says: "Yep, in such a case, you didn't consent, so just like when you transport a sleeping person you can be guilty of kidnapping, ditto here."
Two starkly different views. Though nice to see that both are presented without rancor or animosity towards the competing position/author.
