If a prosecutor cannot prove that you were actually driving a vehicle, then the DUI charge may not stand.
It seems pretty obvious: a driving under the influence (DUI) charges requires proof that you actually drove the vehicle. In many cases, the police actually observed the intoxicated person driving. But in other scenarios, the police did not arrive at the scene until after the car is stopped, such as in an accident or if the car broke down. As any good Los Angeles County DUI attorney will tell you, if the prosecutor cannot prove that you were actually driving the car, you cannot be convicted of driving under the influence.
What Constitutes Driving?
Driving a car in California happens when you move a vehicle by your actions or choice. This could happen if the vehicle only moved a few inches, or if you put the car in neutral and it rolls forward. Driving can also occur when the engine is off — such as if the engine stalls and the driver allows the car to coast to the side of the road. The key here is that it happens “of your own volition.” If you accidentally cause the car to move — for example, if you pass out in your car and hit the gear into neutral — then it does not qualify as driving because it wasn’t of your own volition.
Importantly, California law does not require a person to actually be behind the wheel of the car to be considered driving. If someone else is sitting in the driver’s seat and hitting the gas and brakes, you could still be driving if you are reaching over to steer the car. By the same token, merely being behind the wheel is not driving, even if the engine is on: if the car does not move, it does not qualify as driving.
Proof of Driving
When a DUI case revolves around the question of whether or not you were actually driving, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that you drove a vehicle while under the influence. The easy cases involve situations where there is actual evidence that you were behind the wheel, such as testimony by a witness that he or she saw you drive, your own statements, or a video or photograph of you driving the vehicle.
In other cases, however, there may not be direct evidence that you were driving the vehicle. The prosecution may then have to rely on what is known as circumstantial evidence to prove that you were driving the vehicle. This argument may come down to the following statements: that someone must have driven the vehicle, based on where it was located when found, and that the person was you. If you were the only person at the scene, then it is fairly simple for the prosecutor to demonstrate that you must have been the driver. But if there was more than one person at the scene or in the car, then it becomes more challenging for the prosecutor to meet this burden of proof. In these situations, there may be reasonable doubt that you were the person who drove the car. A jury will decide whether or not there was proof that you drove the car.
A “not driving” defense is just one of many possible defenses that a skilled Los Angeles County DUI attorney could present on your behalf. Remember that it is the prosecutor’s job to prove that you committed the crime in question — and if he or she can’t show that you were actually driving the vehicle, then a DUI charge may be dismissed.
Attorney Dan E. Chambers is both experienced and successful at presenting a variety of DUI defenses on behalf of his clients. He will fight for you, and will work hard to get the best possible resolution to your DUI case. If you would like to speak to an attorney about your DUI arrest, contact the Chambers Law Firm today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com. Our initial consultations are always free!
