This driving issue in DUIs in Los Angeles comes up because a lot of time, the police don't get that standard pullover, but they're still arresting and charging somebody with a DUI case. The reality is that when it comes to the driving aspect of a DUI case, the person doesn't necessarily have to be behind the wheel when the police pull them over. Can the police prove that at some time close to the point of them coming into contact with the person, they were driving?

The perfect scenario is that somebody's car breaks down on the side of the freeway. They get out of the car and start walking to the AAA call box. The police spot them and approach them. They take them back to their vehicle. Then they figure out that they're drunk.

So, now the police will need to prove that the person was driving the car and, secondly, that they were operating the vehicle at the time it was going. In legal terms, 'operation' of a vehicle can refer to any action that sets the vehicle in motion or controls its movement. When they take them back to the station and obtain their breath and blood results, their expert, fast-forwarding ahead to a trial, can say, ' Okay, I'm going to extrapolate backward. '

They were a .15 at 2:00 a.m., so when the police had them at 1:00 a.m., I think they were, and here's why I believe it. But, they need that time of driving. Without that driving time, there's no way that they can do that.

So, how do they get that? Well, they get it through common sense. Often, the police will stop someone on the freeway and say, 'You drove that car there, right? ' The answer is yes. You're the only one out here on the highway.

You don't have a passenger somewhere that we don't see. And when did you stop that car there? So, if they answer those two questions – and the police know they have to do this – they can pinpoint the driving time. So, that's one way to get you.

Vehicle Accident and Witnesses

Another thing I see is that a big accident has occurred. There's a big melee, a big problem. The police arrive, and someone else claims they were driving, not the person the police believe was driving. The police suspect that someone else was driving because witnesses report seeing a different person driving.

These guys switched seats or not; they're lying about that. That other person wasn't driving. That person's not intoxicated, so they're going to say that they were driving versus the drunk person.

Again, it's common sense. They'll examine the facts and available evidence to determine whether someone was driving.

Yes, it's a significant problem if the police cannot prove when you were driving. Suppose somebody crashes a car and gets out, runs away, goes to their house, and an hour goes by. The police come and track him down. Perhaps they followed a trail of blood, or maybe they followed a witness's directions on where the person had gone.

So, how are they going to catch that person for a DUI? They're going to try to get a witness to say, that's the person I saw driving. That's the person I saw in the crash. But then they also have to get around the hurdle – what if you drank alcohol while you were in your house for that hour?

So, they will be asking questions about that. They're going to ask the witnesses. If you come staggering drunk out of the car after an accident and then try to claim, I ran home and drank a bunch of alcohol. Is a jury going to believe that? So, again, they will look at the facts and the surrounding circumstances.

But, bet your bottom dollar, one of the great defenses is, in DUI cases, not every DUI case, but in a lot of them, is whether or not the person was driving because many times, the police don't see the person going. To prove that someone was driving in a DUI case, the police must have witnesses, evidence, and facts to establish the driving.

Asleep On The Side Of The Road

Another area I see is that somebody feels like they're intoxicated, so they get in their car. They have pulled it over to the side of the road, and they're asleep in the car with the keys inside, because it's cold outside, so they need the heat on. Is that a DUI? Not necessarily. They're not driving. The vehicle is not moving.

Again, they will have to prove when they pulled that car there. Another way they can get them is, let's say you're so drunk, you stop in the middle of the road. I've had cases like that as well. If you're plugged into the middle of the road, you're driving even if your car is off. If you're parked like a nut with your whole back-end blocking the road near the curb, you're going for purposes of a DUI.

So, that's the barrier there on whether or not you're driving. But if you're safely parked in a parking spot, and you're just sitting in the car. You can be intoxicated, and you're not moving; that's not driving for purposes of a DUI.

However, many times, people will pull into a parking lot quickly, stop, and then say, 'Yeah, I was just parked in a parking lot.' ' I don't understand how these guys got me, but the police saw them pull into the spot and nearly hit three pedestrians.

Ultimately, the determination of a DUI case hinges on the specific facts and circumstances. This is why we encourage you to come in. We'll sit down, go over everything, discuss the case, and review the police report. With our experience and a focus on the facts, we can make a sound, common-sense determination about whether you were driving for the purposes of a DUI in Los Angeles. This emphasis on specific circumstances should leave you feeling informed and prepared.