I know there are many jurisdictions in which one can be charged and convicted for drunk/impaired driving if they’re intoxicated and the sole occupant of a parked vehicle, on the theory that they have control of it, even if they were not observed driving it.
Are there any jurisdictions that have an analogous law or practice that results in people being charged for driving without a license or with a revoked/expired license, just for being found alone in a parked car, with the keys, but they’re not currently legal to drive it?
The UK has some pretty tough laws on motoring, but even over here, one would have to be actually driving to be charged with driving without a valid licence.
Depends how the law is written. My impression is that DUI laws are specifically written to include the situation where the person is “in control” of the vehicle but not actually in motion at the time. Whereas “driving without a license” I think does not have that provision of “being in control”, they must actually be “operating” the vehicle. I guess the grey area would be someone sitting behind the wheel, engine running, vehicle in park - and the police did not see it moving.
Canadian examples:
It is against the law to drive without a licence. The Criminal Code of Canada states it is illegal for a person to operate a vehicle when they are not qualified, however, each province in Canada deals with the issue differently.
Section 33 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act says all drivers have to carry a licence at all times while “in charge of a motor vehicle or street car.”
Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) section 32(1) : “No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless the motor vehicle is within a class of motor vehicles in respect of which the person holds a driver’s licence issued to him or her under this Act.” R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 32 (1) .
So basically, it seems the law says “driving” and is not clear on what exactly constitutes “driving”. I’m sure there are plenty of court cases about it.
It may become more interesting as more cars are operated with a key fob, and lazy people tend to leave those in the cup holder - so someone could inadvertently be in control of a car. Fortunately, most cars are automatic transmission, so gone are the days (we hope) of accidentally putting the car in neutral and rolling down the hill.
That really is the wildcard. The courts view drunk driving as so evil that you have no rights and practically no allowable defense. I suppose a court could carry over the DUI definition of control as being around your car with keys somewhere in the vicinity to other uses of “driving” such as without a license or being a minor but I doubt they would.
That’s not close to true. If there is no defense then the hours long DUI trials I’ve been involved in wouldn’t happen. If there was no defense there would be no lawyers who specialize in DUI defense. There are many defenses and you give up no rights.
Yes it was hyperbole, but you can’t argue that DUI often involves twisting the law into what would be violations of rights for any other crime, like you are “driving” even if not driving. For the purpose of this OP, when in you car “I wasn’t actually driving.” => Doesn’t matter because you were in control because you were in the car (even not in the driver’s seat) and the keys were nearby (in the wheel-well) and courts are perfectly OK with this. So if I’m in a car with no license and the keys are in the car, under the same logic why am I not driving without a license?
(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;
(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has operated a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it was impaired to any degree by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, or has committed an offence under paragraph 320.14(1)(c) or (d) or subsection 320.14(4), the peace officer may, by demand, made as soon as practicable, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b):
(a) to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the person’s ability to operate a conveyance is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose
253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
Note that the extra bits in this law basically make it difficult (impossible?) to escape a mandatory breathalyzer or drug test if the police have reasonable grounds to think that you are impaired.
So while the license laws say “driving” for with or without a license, the criminal code on DUI says “operating… has operated” and “care and control”.
I assume that what constitutes being in care and control of the vehicle is established law by now. I know I’ve been pulled over with a passenger beside me who was passed out (and I was scrunched over to the side because he’d barfed in the middle of the bench seat). The police just pointed their flashlight and asked how he was, and let us continue taking him home. But I was the driver, and perfectly sober. Me exiting the vehicle (with keys) was not enough to charge him for being there.
So the question is whether your jurisdiction has similarly worded laws.
I was wondering about the case of a 10 year old kid climbing into the driver’s seat of a car parked in the driveway and going “vroom-vroom”. If an adult without a license could be ticketed, the kid could as well.
Then, of course, there’s the hypothetical of a 10 year old who got into their parent’s booze and doing the same. Could they be charge with DUI?
(I have a relative who was so drunk, when they got into the car to go home they ended up in the back seat wondering where the steering wheel was. Cop saw this and DUI ensued. Yeah, front seat with the engine running- that’s a DUI. What if a drunk just wants to sleep it off in the back seat?)
Well this is FQ so hyperbole doesn’t work very well. But you are still wrong that rights are violated or the law is twisted in any way. You may not like the very clear case law but that doesn’t mean it violates anyone’s rights. I’m curious to hear what right is violated.
Perhaps, if they had the keys. Has this ever happened?
Probably, also if they had the keys, but that wasn’t the question in my OP. And everybody else now expounding on how people can be charged with DUI… That was not my question in the OP.
In Florida (and in most states) a DUI can occur if the person is driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle.
APC means being in the vehicle with the ability to operate it.
So, it’s not that the law is twisted to mean driving when a person isn’t driving. It’s that you can get a DUI even when you are explicitly not driving.
I don’t imagine the same additional conditions exist for offenses that are strictly driving offenses.
Having said that, I would expect that driving doesn’t just mean when a car is in motion. If you are in a car, in the driver’s seat, and it is running, you are probably driving, even if it is in park and not moving.
(f) “Driving under the influence” means driving a motor vehicle or vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of alcohol and one or more drugs, that affects the person to a degree that the person is substantially incapable, either mentally or physically, or both mentally and physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.
(g) “Driving while ability impaired” means driving a motor vehicle or vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more drugs, that affects the person to the slightest degree so that the person is less able than the person ordinarily would have been, either mentally or physically, or both mentally and physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.
So again I ask the question: if “driving” means in control of the car and is construed to mean being in the car with the keys even if it is not running for the purposes of DUI and DWAI, then why wouldn’t it mean the same for driving without a license?
It may seem obvious, but you cannot be convicted of driving drunk or stoned in Colorado if you did not actually drive .
This “no driving defense” cannot help DUI defendants who the police actually saw driving before the traffic stop – especially if the defendants are caught driving on dashcam.
But Colorado’s no driving defense can help in cases where:
The police find the DUI suspect standing or sitting outside a vehicle at an accident scene.
The police find the DUI suspect just sitting in a parked car with the motor running.
The police find several people in a parked car, and they could have switched places before the police got there.
For the 8-year-old who takes mommy’s keys and goes on a joy ride - at least in Canada, children under 12 (or is it 14?) cannot be charged with a crime. Similarly for vroom-vroom noises. The parent might get investigated by Child Welfare for not supervising properly if there were real danger.
The key, as I point out in the Canadian law, is the distinction between “in control of” and “driving”. A drunk alone sleeping in the back seat, in possession of the keys, may awake at any time to start driving but may still be impaired when they wake up. If you don’t fail the breathalyzer when the police find you and wake you up, then they have not case…
(And it occurs to me with a Tesla, where your phone can be the key, the risk is even higher of being charged…)
My in-laws had a 15yo crash her mom’s van into their building. Not sure what the outcome was, but I presume the driver probably won’t be eligible for a license until age 18, when juvenile record is sealed.
when I read the local regulations (laws in effect ) here, it becomes complicated.
words such as “driving” are redefined… so for your over the limit of ethanol, they add to definition of driving to " being in control of a registerable vehicle parked on a road" but notice that does not include bicycles or skateboards, right ?
There is very often a “no stopping” sign right next to a “stop” sign. I notice in the rules, that the definition of stop , for the purpose of “no stopping” signs offenses, is qualified,
"except when traffic or traffic controls in front prevents movement ". Some jurisdiction accepted that if a passenger gets out while you are in a no stopping lane, then they have added their purpose to the reason you are stopped, and that the exception for traffic and traffic controls applies if that is the sole reason you are stopped. Not sure that they should be so pedantic, how is the driver meant to control the passenger, etc,etc
So while the offense is labelled “driving while under the influence”, driving is extended to being in control of the vehicle or similar wording, ,but for the unlicensed offence, it is not so extended… you literally have to be moving or at least operating the vehicle. These things are defined state by state, so six states in Australia, 50 in the USA, 4 in the UK…your local rules may be done differently but they would have thought of it .
Someone got charged with an alcohol in the blood offense for having the keys for a vehicle ? Not here, but some state somewhere decided that was enough to say he was responsible for a vehicle.
A guy drove to another town to spend the night with his girlfriend. They went out for the evening and alcohol was consumed. When they got back to her home (where he had left his car) they fell out and she shut the door on him.
Knowing he was over the limit, he elected to spend the night on the back seat of his car, but in the early hours a policeman breathalysed and arrested him for being “drunk in charge”.
The magistrate took a different view and acquitted him on the grounds that he obviously had no intention of driving, although it was pointed out that he may well have still been over the limit in the morning.
There seems to be a distinct difference between being “in charge” and “driving”.
Whether or not a person is in charge of a motor vehicle depends on the facts of each individual case. These cases usually arise when a motorist who is in excess of the prescribed limit is found inside a car but is not driving. The key question is whether the person is in control of the vehicle and whether there is a realistic possibility of them attempting to drive the vehicle. An individual could be charged with this offence if they have entered a vehicle with the intention of removing belongings or to sleep.
There are clear implications here for people sleeping in a motorhome and truck drivers sleeping in their cabs.
In connection with the use of mobile phones the Divisional Court summarised the case-law on the subject of when “driving” ceased:
The vehicle need not be moving. Once it has come to rest the operations of applying the handbrake, switching off the ignition etc. should be considered as part of the driving;
Has the motorist reached the end of their journey? Subject to the brief interval needed to carry out the operations referred to above then on reaching the end of the journey they should no longer be regarded as driving;
When the motorist stops during the journey the following questions will be relevant in deciding whether they are still driving or not:
Is the purpose of the stop connected with the driving?
How long was the stop? The longer it was the less likely it is that they can still be considered to be driving;
Did they get out? If not, that is an indication (although not conclusive) that they are still driving.
When a motorist has been effectively prevented or dissuaded from driving then they are no longer to be considered as driving.
This means that an individual stopped at a traffic light or held up in traffic could be prosecuted for a mobile phone offence. However, prosecutors should bear in mind that the intention of the legislation is to promote road safety. They should ask whether the use of the phone or other device is in circumstances which might prejudice the driver’s ability to drive safely.
A person who uses their phone while stationary at traffic lights will be distracted and less able to move off safely when the light change. Similar considerations would apply to a driver stationary in a traffic jam.
YMMV depending on jurisdiction, but a driveway is usually not considered a public roadway and no license is needed to operate vehicles on it unless it is private property that is open to the general public, such as to a business.
My take is that most of these disputed drunk driving situations involve a person passed out behind the wheel of a vehicle with the engine running, either parked or actually in a traffic lane.
It’s not a new interpretation of law by pro-DUI extremists, but in accord with precedents going back many decades, as this N.J. case shows:
This guy appealed to the state Supreme Court, but lost.
Yes, when Prince Charles first got his license, back in the mists of time, someone questioned why he was driving without an adult beside him - and it was pointed out he’d been driving on the estates since age 14, which since it was not a public roadway was perfectly legal.
I recall a similar discussion on Reddit where someone told the story of the police rousting up some college kid who’d gone out to sleep in the car. The police asked him where the keys were, and he showed them he’d stashed them behind a rock 50 yards away. Once he picked up the keys, they arrested him for DUI. Not sure how that would play out in court, but police can be less than even-handed sometimes.
The current law about using a cellphone is some provinces is equally tricky. Simply being stopped at a red light isn’t good enough - you are still 'driving". However, you can use a cellphone if you pull over to the side, and put the vehicle in park but leave it idling, a situation that would get you a DUI if you were drunk.