In a previous post, we discussed successful strategies that can counter the state’s evidence with regard to intoxication, whether this evidence is direct or circumstantial. There are some other possible defenses, as well, and aggressive representation in these areas is often the difference between an undesirable result of a DUI charge and one that is far more palatable.
In the everyday sense, “driving” is easy to define. In this context, most people, and most jurors, assume that the term means that a person is behind the wheel, the car is in gear, the car is running, and the car is in motion.
However, Section 11-501 clearly states that it is illegal to “drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle” while intoxicated. So, consider the following scenarios:
“Driving” or “Operating”
To have a private conversation with her estranged husband during a crowded and noisy house party, Sarah goes out to her car and takes his call. Sarah, like many other people at the party, has been drinking. When an officer comes to the scene in response to a noise complaint, he sees an animated Sarah in the driver’s seat. After determining that she had been drinking and administering a Breathalyzer test, the officer arrests Sarah.
Frankly, there are not many Sarahs, and her scenario does not come up often. When it does, driving or physical control usually has two elements:
- Ability to Drive the Vehicle: The keys must be in the ignition. If the keys were in the defendant’s purse or elsewhere nearby, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant had the mental and physical capacity to start the car but lacked capacity to drive the car, and that is a very fine line.
- Intent to Drive: The jury can normally infer intent based on circumstantial evidence, such as the ability to drive.
Ability and intent need not exist at the same time because a person who is passed out drunk behind the wheel does not have the intent to drive the car at that moment, but sooner or later, that intent will be there. There are a couple of other variations, such as person who is parked at the side of a road or idling outside a house waiting for a friend.
DUI Collision Cases
Mike had been drinking when he collided with another vehicle in an intersection. When first responders arrive to clear the scene, an officer notices that Mike had been drinking, and after Mike fails field sobriety tests, Mike is arrested and charged with aggravated DUI.
Mike’s situation is a little more common. At trial, the prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mike was the person who drove the car and caused the crash. The prosecutor’s job is a little easier if Mike admitted to the officer or anyone else that he was driving at the time because these out-of-court statements are normally admissible.
For the most part, the prosecutor must produce a civilian witness — perhaps the other driver — who saw Mike behind the wheel, and this witness must give compelling testimony that Mike was driving the car.
Reach Out to Aggressive Attorneys
Prosecutors must prove each element of a DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal law attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of Juan di Nella)