Oh my God! You’re JOKING, right? You’ve never heard of anyone getting a DUI while asleep in their car?? What planet are you from??
*Banner v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing.
In September, 1999, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling in this area. In the case of Banner v. Department of Transportation, a policeman was investigating a suspicious parked car near State Route 130, at 4:30 AM. The officer found Mr. Banner, sleeping in a reclined position in the passenger seat of the car along the roadway. The keys were in the ignition, the engine and lights were turned off.
When the officer tapped on the car window, Mr. Banner awakened and reached for the keys in the ignition. There was no alcohol in the vehicle.
Banner failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer ordered him to take a breath test, and gave him the required warnings, but Banner refused. The Department of Transportation then notified Banner that, as a result of his refusal, his operating privileges would be suspended for one year.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of operating privileges was not valid. The court asserted that a request for a breath test must be supported by reasonable grounds for the officer to have believed that the individual was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Here, there were no such reasonable grounds. The mere presence of an intoxicated person in an automobile is not enough to show that actual physical control over that vehicle.
But in other cases, the court has found that there ARE reasonable grounds for the Banner v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing.
In September, 1999, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling in this area. In the case of Banner v. Department of Transportation, a policeman was investigating a suspicious parked car near State Route 130, at 4:30 AM. The officer found Mr. Banner, sleeping in a reclined position in the passenger seat of the car along the roadway. The keys were in the ignition, the engine and lights were turned off.
When the officer tapped on the car window, Mr. Banner awakened and reached for the keys in the ignition. There was no alcohol in the vehicle.
Banner failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer ordered him to take a breath test, and gave him the required warnings, but Banner refused. The Department of Transportation then notified Banner that, as a result of his refusal, his operating privileges would be suspended for one year.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of operating privileges was not valid. The court asserted that a request for a breath test must be supported by reasonable grounds for the officer to have believed that the individual was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Here, there were no such reasonable grounds. The mere presence of an intoxicated person in an automobile is not enough to show that actual physical control over that vehicle. But in other cases, the court has found that there ARE reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the individual was operating a vehicle while under the influence. In determining when a person has actual physical control over the vehicle, such that a person may be charged with drunk driving, the Pennsylvania courts will look at where the person is seated in the vehicle, and whether the automobile engine is running. In cases where the vehicle occupant was found sleeping behind the wheel and the engine was running, the courts have upheld DUI convictions.*
http://www.familylawyerservice.com/parked.htm
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/5177185.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp