BBM
Ah, okay, I did not know this.
Well, why wouldn't she take the bottle with her then, if she was so concerned? It wasn't even really an open container...it was a Coke bottle...heck, why not just chuck it off to the side of the road? Why leave it right at the scene? I'm still leaning toward drunk-logic. (I ETA'd my last post before you replied carpanthers, sorry).
Oh no problem about ETA. Her decision to hide the alcohol means she didn't want it to be discovered. She had to choose between:
A. Ditching the alcohol at the scene
and
B. Carrying the alcohol from the scene.
The fact that she chose to leave it at the scene means she thought the alcohol would be better hidden at the scene than on her person. This implies that she is afraid she would be caught carrying it.
Once she decided to leave it at the scene, she had to decide between:
A. Hiding it under her car
Or
B. Throwing it into the woods
If she were planning on leaving the scene of an accident for any period of time, the logical presumption is that police would search for her in the woods near the scene. If she were to throw the bottle into the woods and they found it while searching for the driver of this crash, the presumption would be that she had deliberately hidden this alcohol from the police.
If she chooses to hide it under the car:
A. It may never be discovered if she is able to return to the scene and remove it.
B. She has plausible deniability about hiding the alcohol in the event that it is discovered. She could claim that it had rolled or been kicked underneath the car.
I believe the Coke bottle would have been considered an open container. It is a mixed drink in an unsealed bottle that had originally held another substance. This is why it is important that it be hidden. Maura does not attempt to hide the box of wine, which she could have claimed had burst during the crash. She cannot claim that this crash damaged and unsealed the Coke bottle, as the Coke bottle had clearly been opened and did not contain Coke.