Can I be charged with a DUI if the car was not on? 74 Answers as of November 21, 2011

Yes you can get charged with DUI in this manner. The statute defining DUI states that one who operates or has actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated may be charged with the offense. Whether or not you had "actual physical control" in this fact situation depends on what other evidence is present.

You can be charged but the prosecuting attorney has to prove you were driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

You can be charged but you might be able to get it dismissed. there may be more factors you are unaware of, such as whether the police dispatch received a call about someone driving erratically in a vehicle similar to yours.

This is an interesting case. The police can still properly arrest you if they had probable cause to believe you were driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. If the police did not witness you drive that will be helpful to defend your case. However, the police can assert that you were still in actual physical possession of the vehicle, depending on whether they actually saw you in the vehicle and what they saw. I don't know if you underwent any Field Sobriety Testing or blood or breath testing as that will also play a part in the case.

They need either direct or circumstantial evidence that you were operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. So, your case will depend on the police's testimony as to why they believe they had probable cause to arrest you.

The question is not whether you can be "charged" with a DUI but whether the state can prove this offense. The DUI statute covers driving, operating or being "in physical control" of a motor vehicle. The police do not need to see the vehicle in motion if they can prove their case with other evidence. If they have a statement from a private citizen or an admission from you, this may well take the place of their own observation. This scenario comes up most often when a driver runs off a roadway and gets stuck. If the police find the driver/owner near the vehicle or walking from the vehicle, they will usually try to get an admission from the driver/owner that he was driving when the vehicle left the roadway. Absent such an admission, the police will look at the facts they find and decide whether, in their minds, there exists any other reasonable explanation for the vehicle's current location. It is up to you to put facts in issue by entering a plea of "not guilty". Only then will you determine whether the state can "prove" its case. Remember, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Yes you can. If the circumstances suggest you had been driving thre car, then you can be arrested for a DUI.

To convict you of DUI, they must prove that you operated a moving vehicle while drunk. They don't have to necessarily see you driving to prove that. If you told them you had just driven the car, or if someone else saw you driving, that could possibly provide proof of driving.

That depends on the evidence. Maybe someone saw you driving and can testify to that. Your attorney would get a copy of the police reports and be able to advise you.

The entire facts of the situation would have to be reviewed to be able to provide an answer. You should consult with an attorney immediately.

Probably not unless the car was parked illegally or still in the roadway or in a place posing danger to persons or property.

First of all, pretty much anyone can be charged with almost any charge, the real question is can you be convicted of DUI. The law requires that a person actually drive a vehicle while their driving ability is affected by drugs or alcohol. However the driving can be proven with circumstantial evidence. So if you told officers that you were drinking at a friend’s house and you were on your way home when you decided to get something out of the trunk, that could be used to prove that you were drunk when you were driving assuming it had been a short while before. The best thing you can do right now is to hire a criminal defense lawyer to help you with this case.

Based on the facts that you have provided there may well be some questions about whether this was a proper arrest and you should consider hiring an attorney who is skilled in the defense of persons charged with DUI to represent your interests in any criminal trial.

Yes - you probably told the police you drove the car before you went into the trunk.

The answer is no you cannot, unless they have evidence, whether through your own statements or an eye witness, that you had just finished driving the vehicle. however, if they merely saw you go into the trunk to retrieve something and have no evidence that you were operating it, you should not have been charged and you should definitely not be convicted. furthermore, if you successfully defend this case, you should consider a civil action for false arrest.

Obviously, driving is an element in driving under the influence. However, driving has a very broad meaning in Maryland. You should talk to a lawyer about all of the facts so that you can put on the best defense at trial. Don't expect the prosecutor to just drop the case.

You can be charged as in arrested by cops. Proving the violation could be anther matter. You should see an attorney.

If you are not behind the wheel, with the keys in the ignition, you should not have been arrested in this case. However, it might come down to your word against the cops, who naturally will say you were behind the wheel when they came up on you, and this becomes a matter of credibility, your word vs. the police. If you had a witness certainly bring him or her into court with you. Hire a good defense lawyer if you hope to have a chance to win this case.

Yes. You can be charged but you may be able to beat it.

The police can charge you with whatever they want. The car not being on just makes it harder for them to prove that you were driving. Hopefully, you did not say anything stupid that would implicate that you were driving. Things that you said that could have hurt you include, yes I was driving the car, yes I have been drinking. Other facts are important to know as well. were you in the middle the road blocking it or were you in parked legally. These facts can affect whether or not the evidence can be suppressed .

You should be able to beat the DUI but then they will charge you with being drunk in public.

You can be charged. The question is whether the cops need to see you driving for the arrest to be valid. Except for limited circumstances they need to observe driving. They did not, you might be able to suppress the arrest and tests.

If you had the keys in your possession then you had control over the vehicle. Having control is equated to being able to drive it and then, yes, you could be charged with DUI.

They would somehow have to demonstrate that you must have been operating that vehicle while intoxicated on a public roadway. Based on what you stated, that would be very hard for them to prove. You need to retain an experienced DUI attorney to represent you or at least review the case file before agreeing to anything.

Yes. They can charge you. However, you may be able to win at trial. Also, proof of driving is important for a Kansas administrative hearing.

Under Minnesota law, it is only required that the driver has the ability to operate the motor vehicle. In other words, the vehicle need not be running. Police officers, however, must have a reasonable suspicion of a particularized criminal activity in order to conduct a seizure. Getting items out of a trunk does not appear to provide that reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, without additional evidence, being outside of the vehicle and going through the trunk is unlikely to support the contention that the vehicle could be operated.

Conviction for driving under the influence in California requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all of the elements including the driving element. Driving is defined as "volitional movement" of the vehicle. Essentially the government must prove that the vehicle moved as a result of some intentional action of the charged person. However, volitional movement can be proven by circumstantial evidence and does not require personal observation of driving. (There is a separate issue regarding the legality of arrest under Penal Code 836 for offenses that do not occur in the officer's presence. This issue may prevail in an attack at the DMV administrative hearing.) Therefore, if the car is parked outside your house, the hood is cold to the touch, the keys are not in the ignition, there is no admission to driving or witness to driving, then the circumstances would not lead to the conclusion of driving. If, however, the vehicle is parked on the side of the highway in a remote area, the hood is warm, the keys are in it, there is no one else around, and the officer passed the area a few minutes earlier and there was no car parked in the location, then a jury could reasonably conclude you had been driving. Each case is unique to its facts, I urge you to consult with an experienced attorney in the county you are being charged in.

Unfortunately, yes. Most misdemeanors must be observed by the Officer in order for him to arrest someone. However, an exception to that rule is covered by Vehicle Code section 40300.5. An Officer can still arrest when any of the following exists: (a) The person is involved in a traffic accident. (b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway. (c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested. (d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested. (e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested. So while the arrest might be lawful, the District Attorney could still have difficulty in proving all the necessary elements for a conviction.

Prosecutors frequently charge weak cases. This is a weak case. If you were caught in the car, but not driving, your case would be more properly termed a "physical control", which means that you were in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired. If you were safely off the roadway while in physical control of a car while drunk, you would have a great defense. The legislature wants people to pull over if they realize they've had too much to drink. Here, the cops aren't even sure that you were driving the vehicle. That raises a corpus delicti issue. This is a fancy way of saying that there is no proof that you were driving, which is required under the DUI statute. No proof of driving means possibly getting the case dismissed. You still have to convince a judge that you weren't driving, and some judges are more open minded than others, so nothing's guaranteed. Of course, the cops frequently tell a different story in their police reports in an attempt to tie up any loose ends that might help you defend your case

It is likely that you will be charged. The D.A. will try to prove you were driving. They will check if there was anyone else in or near the vehicle, if it was your car, if there were keys in the vehicle, was the engine warm and did you admit driving the car to that location.

It all depends where they came upon the car. If the motor was warm and no place to drink in the area, there is circumstantial evidence you were driving. If you were near a bar and legally parked, you may have walked to the car to put something in the trunk and did not operate it. It is difficult to give a n accurate answer on the facts you give. I once won a case where a client was in an accident near a bar and claimed he went into the bar after the accident and had a few drinks while waiting for the police to arrive.

If you're in a location that you had to drive to to be there, and no one else was with you, you can be convicted of DWI. You don't have to be actually driving the car when the cop sees you.

You can be charged but they will not be able to prove the case. A good lawyer will be able to help you.

Given that you were outside the car, it sounds like you may have a defense, especially if the keys were not in the ignition. If there are witnesses to recent driving conduct, or circumstances to suggest an inference that you just drove to that location and stopped or if you made statements to that effect, the case becomes harder to defend. The cops don't necessarily have to see the vehicle in motion if the circumstances suggest you wouldn't be in that particular place unless you just drove there.

It is possible to get charged with a DUI but actual driving is an element that the prosecutor will have to prove. They may be relying on a 911 call of a civilian who saw driving and reported your plate. Although someone can always call and make that up as well.

You should have given the officers your identification. That gave them the right to arrest you for driving without a license and DWI if they suspected that you were drinking. To be found guilty the keys have to be in the ignition and they have to prove that you operated the vehicle. If you did not admit to drinking or driving and they did not see you drive then you may be able to win at trial. You should retain a good criminal attorney to handle the case. you have a good chance of winning at trial as even if you were intoxicated they cannot prove when you drove the vehicle.

You have a good case for trial. Talk to your lawyer. Even good trial cases sometimes are better off going into diversion, which gets you dismissal if you complete treatment.

They can certainly charge you but you have a wheel witness issue. Who saw you driving? Did you admit to driving? Is there a defense that you weren't driving? You need to hire an experienced DWI trial lawyer in your area and fight this with everything you got.

They can charge you with DUI based on circumstantial evidence. You need to hire a DUI specialist ASAP, because you have only 10 days to protect your license. "No drive" claims are often made, and prosecutors are used to dealing with them, so you do need an experienced DUI attorney to help you in court as well.

If these are the extent of the facts, you should be fine - but if they have a witness that the car was being driven, maybe the engine was warm or something else - BUT cops usually need to put you in the driver's seat with keys.

To be charged with a DUI you do not have to be driving the car at the time of the officers first contact. If a person has passed out behind the wheel of the car with the keys in it is enough to check that person for a DUI. Under the facts that you presented the officer may have seen you drive to where you stopped. If they did not see the car in motion it could be that your keys were still in the car. You did not help yourself by refusing to show the officer your identification. As to why you received a DUI citation because of this incident your attorney will tell you after reading the police report.

Driving while under the influence requires that the prosecution prove that you were in actual physical control of a vehicle and that you were impaired by drug and/or alcohol. Physical control can be defined very broadly and you may be held culpable. I suggest you contact a criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and flush out the specific facts to defend yourself. A DUI offense can end up costing you a lot if you simply plead guilty.

How do you know that they did not witness the vehicle in motion? Is it possible that someone else saw the car in motion and called the police, who then responded? You also don't say where the vehicle was parked. If you are under the influence, the keys are in the ignition, the car is running, you could be charged with physical control.

You can still be charged. If you are not in a location such as your home, the question will arise as to how did you get there without committing a DUI. The lack of observed driving is an argument that weakens the prosecution case but it is not fatal to the case.

The issue you face is "driving" as defined in the DUI statutes. There are various decisions on control, a term "constructive control," Sounds as if you should consult a DUI lawyer, you are being persecuted for merely being around a car, and to prosecute you they must have more than just getting into the trunk.

Most likely boils done to specific facts supporting circumstantial evidence.

A person can be charged with DUII even if the officer did not observe the person driving. However, the officer must have probable cause to believe the person was driving the vehicle while intoxicated. So, if a person admits to having driven the car and having consumed intoxicants, an officer may believe he/she has probable cause to arrest. Such cases are harder to prove so you will want to contact an attorney that specializes in criminal defense.

Their cases a circumstantial evidence case since they did not see you operating a motor vehicle on a public highway, which is a requirement that the state must prove. They will try to prove that you operated a motor vehicle by circumstantial evidence.

They can only convict you if you were in control of the vehicle. Lots of people have been found to be in control of a vehicle while asleep with the keys in the ignition, but I think if you were outside the car that if a real stretch. I bet they will say they felt the hood and it was warm and argue circumstantial evidence that you actually drove the car. You could beat this if they can't prove that no one else reasonably could have driven it.

You were charged with a DUI, and you ask if they can? They did. Actually, the prosecutor did (apparently) the charging because police have no authority in that regard. However, if it is factually true that you were not driving the vehicle at any point, then it is not a crime to access a vehicle's trunk while drunk (no matter how drunk). The issue is whether they have probable cause to believe you had been driving the vehicle while intoxicated. (actually that is one of the MANY issues that must be discussed with a criminal law attorney such as myself who can only give legitimate advice upon a thorough investigation).

You can be "charged" but whether there will be legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction s another question entirely. One of the elements the state must prove in Massachusetts is that the car was operated (and on a public way). "Operation" can include situations where the car is not in motion but the key is in the ignition (even if the engine is not running). You should immediately retain an experienced criminal defense lawyer, who will know how best to use this set of facts (and the applicable law) to your legal advantage, including preparing and filing motions to dismiss, a motion for a required finding of not guilty at trial,

The issue is being in control of the car. Hopefully the keys were not in the ignition and the car was not running. Hopefully you were in your driveway where you live. If you were out and no other driver was present that could be a problem. Hire a good criminal defense lawyer immediately.

That would depend on whether there was a witness that can prove you were driving or the car was running. It is also possible that the police charged you with being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. If your car was on the street, you were drunk and the care was in operable condition, they could charge theat. DUI and Physical Control are virtually the same in terms of consequences.

If the keys were in the ignition, you can be charged.

If you made any statements about driving to the location where they found you, or if it was away from a city and no one else was around so there is a reasonable inference that you drove there, then it might be possible you could be convicted. However, it seems like a pretty defensible case.

yes, if you are alone in the middle of nowhere with a warm hood and slurred speech.

This is a tough situation because MN has a law commonly called the in control of the vehicle law. If you could have controlled the vehicle you could be charged. Seek legal representation immediately to analyze your defenses pertaining to the criminal charges and your license revocation.

The car doesn't need to be in motion to be considered operation. In Massachusetts there is no rule that requires the car to be actually moving to be considered operation. In this situation, you could be charged with DUI

If you admitted driving, or were the only one present, or were in "physical control" of the vehicle, which can be interpreted very broadly, you can be charged with DWI.

As a former prosecutor, I prosecuted defendants for DUI based upon circumstantial evidence that they had been driving. We recommend that you retain an experienced DUI attorney ASAP. You never know what a jury will do.

It is not uncommon for a person to be charged with a DUI even though he/she was not observed driving. There are a variety of factors that the police will use to establish that you had been driving the vehicle. These may include the location of your stopped car, keys in the ignition, your statements, witness statements, the absence of other possible drivers, etc... Although prosecutors typically file DUI charges in these circumstances, you may have very strong defenses. We refer to these types of cases as "no-drive" cases or a "no-drive" defense. You should contact a qualified DUI lawyer to setup a consultation.

It sounds like a valid defense, but you will need a good criminal/DUI attorney.

You should speak with an attorney or public defender as soon as possible. It sounds like you have a good defense. However, it depends why the police arrived there in the first place. I am not sure if someone called them on you or when you were last driving.