Dui

[moggsp98]

In Idaho, keys in the ignition, person in drivers position. Vehicle does not have to be running or moving.

[BigDawg]

Well lets say the LT charges for DUI in this case. When he gets to court can he prove that she was driving? That she was in controle of the vehicle? NO WAY!!!!!


Whose to say that the driver didnt give her the keys while they were there and he was in the woods peeing?? Or that the car broke down while they were there and he walked off to get help leaving her the keys so she could lock the doors??

Under the Lt's assuption of control, then if a 6 yr old takes the keys to the vehicle from their mother while at the park. So they can play with the keys, then the 6 yr old is in control of the vehicle??

To me "in physical control" of the vehicle is along the lines of; If you could ticket the person for something such as driving with no license, then they are in control. If you couldnt charge them with something like that, then they are not in control.

[sgtpelon]

Talk about vague, here is California's law

305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical
control of a vehicle.

What do they mean by physical control? Does that mean hands on the steering wheel? If you are sitting back asleep, with keys out of the ignition, where is the control? There are a million other questions that could be asked, but the bottom line is that I think you did the right thing too. The lieutenant wasn't going to be the one on the stand trying to explain "control" to 12 dim bulbs.

[TwanimusPrime]

Really depends on how each states courts and attorneys interpret it. The rule I use is. if they are in the drivers seat and the car is turned on, they are in actual physical control. if the car if off I just yell at them and make them get a cab.

[JCSO8]

Big dawg i disagree with your post. There is a small series of questions to prove she was driving. I am not saying 16-11 did right or wrong but that could have been DWUI charge in wyoming under actual physical control and won in court for sure.. I wasn't there all cases are different and there should be no judge to say she did right or wrong if they were not there. The laws in so many states are completely different, also it depends alot on your department policy. Those are some things to take into consideration as well.

[countybear]

Big dawg i disagree with your post. There is a small series of questions to prove she was driving. I am not saying 16-11 did right or wrong but that could have been DWUI charge in wyoming under actual physical control and won in court for sure.. I wasn't there all cases are different and there should be no judge to say she did right or wrong if they were not there. The laws in so many states are completely different, also it depends alot on your department policy. Those are some things to take into consideration as well.

I think we all agree that a number of factors have to be considered to fill in the gap between probable cause and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. One of such factors can certainly be the statements made by the suspect themselves. Unfortunately, I have seen a trend in the justice system to discount police accounts of suspect's statements, especially when a suspect testifies to the contrary (after his attorney calls him an idiot and preps him for court). In the scenario that was originally posted, I believe that probable cause existed for the arrest based on the common and accepted definitions of 'physical control', yet without further support, proof beyond reasonable doubt was probably lacking. Much has been said about the officer's use of discretion in such cases.

I have seen a case here in Louisiana where a felony DWI went all the way through conviction when the offender was arrested fueling the car at a gas pump, ignition off, keys in the car. One of the things that baked the case was that he was admittedly alone at the time.

P.S.: please send a PM to 121Traffic to get verified as LEO, if you haven't already.