If an individual is asleep behind the wheel, can you beat their DUI? These cases of a parked car/asleep at a wheel happen a lot in Chester County. In addition, the Chester County DUI lawyer better know the cases to formulate a proper defense.
The biggest element of a DUI offense under 75 Pa. C. S. A. section 3802 is the following: 1) that the defendant drove, operated, or was an actual physical control of the vehicle, and 2) while under the influence.
Earlier versions of the DUI law provided an interpretation of driving in a more narrower sense, although circumstantial evidence could still be used as sufficient reason to find that a vehicle had been in motion. Later on, a broader reading of what constitutes driving occurred as the law changed.
A determination of actual physical control of the vehicle is based the totality of the circumstances, including the location of the vehicle, whether the engine was running and whether there was additional evidence indicating that the defendant had driven the vehicle prior to the arrival of the police. Thus, an eyewitness is not necessarily required to establish that a defendant was driving, operating, or an actual physical control of the vehicle. Something more is required, however, to establish actual physical control than the defendant's presence behind the wheel with the motor running. There must be evidence to support an inference indicating that the vehicle had been driven by the defendant while he was intoxicated. Again it is important to note, that it had to have been operated while the person was actually driving and while during that time, they were drunk.
The fact that the vehicle was not moving is not dispositive. One must be shown is that the operator was an actual physical control of either the machinery of the vehicle or of the management of the movement of the vehicle itself. For example, what is the trooper found the defendant slumped across the front seat of a car, sound asleep, with the motor running and the lights on, the evidence of actual physical control was sufficient. The evidence was sufficient to establish actual physical control in another case, when the defendant was slumped over the wheel when observed by the police officer, and 45 minutes later had a blood alcohol content of .263. It is not enough however to show that an individual who was just sitting any driver seat of a vehicle when the engine is not running to prove actual physical control.