PA Court Upholds DUI Conviction Despite Officer Not Observing Defendant Driving
Posted in DUI on July 14, 2024
Many people me and ask “how can I be charged with DUI if the officer did not observe me driving?” In many of the cases, the person is sleeping behind the wheel of the car but not driving. In Pennsylvania, while the charge is Driving Under the Influence, the DUI law actually states that an “individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after consuming alcohol that puts the person’s blood alcohol level over the legal limit. This means that a person need not be driving, operating or being in actual physical control is sufficient to be charged and even convicted of a DUI in Pennsylvania.
“Operate” a Vehicle for a Pennsylvania DUI
The next question is what does “operate” mean and how does the district attorney prove operation. Pennsylvania courts have stated that operation can be proven through circumstantial evidence, meaning direct evidence is not required. People often think that the officer must see or video something in order to file charges. Such evidence is direct evidence. Cases can be filed and prosecuted based upon circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be explained as a combination of facts that give rise to a belief that something occurred.
In the DUI case context, courts often consider whether or not the person was behind the wheel, the motor was running, the location of the vehicle, and any additional evidence showing that the vehicle had recently been driven. For example, if a driver is found passed out behind the wheel of a running car that is parked incorrectly in a parking lot, there is circumstantial evidence that the driver operated or was in actual physical control of the vehicle to justify a DUI charge.
DUI Charge When Driver Not Behind the Wheel
In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Fallon, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered a DUI conviction in a case in which the person was not in the vehicle at all. In the case, the police were dispatched to a domestic violence call. Upon arriving at the home, the police saw Fallon on the porch of the residence, and he admitted to having driven to the residence and consuming a six-pack of beer. A car was parked in the driveway and was registered to Fallon, and Fallon had the car keys on him. The officer also touched the hood of the vehicle and noted that it was warm, as if the vehicle had recently been driven. The officer smelled alcohol on Fallon and requested Fallon to complete field sobriety tests. The officer made the decision to arrest Fallon for suspicion of driving under the influence. A blood alcohol concentration test showed that Fallon’s blood alcohol level was a .266%. Fallon was charged and ultimately convicted of DUI.
Fallon appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and argued that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that he was driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the vehicle to justify the DUI conviction. The court denied the appeal and ruled that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the DUI conviction.
This is yet another example that the police do not need to actually see a person driving or have an eye witness that observed a person driving in order to prosecute the person for DUI. Anyone charged with a Pennsylvania DUI should contact an experienced Pennsylvania DUI lawyer for representation.