Minnesota Court of Appeals Clarifies "Physical Control" of Motor Vehicle for Sleepy, Intoxicated Auto Owners
In a decision published on March 24, 2009 entitled State v. Fleck, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that evidence that a person was alone, intoxicated, and asleep behind the wheel of his car parked in an assigned space in his apartment’s parking lot at 11:30 p.m. with the keys on the console, was sufficient to support a finding that he was "in physical control" of the motor vehicle within the meaning of Minnesota's drunk driving laws.
Late one evening, law enforcement responded to a call and found Fleck asleep behind the wheel of his car. The relevant vehicle was legally parked in an assigned space at the apartment building where he lived. Fleck was drunk, with a blood alcohol content of .18. The keys to the car were on the console between the driver and passenger seats, but there was no evidence that Fleck had recently driven the vehicle. Fleck was arrested and charged with two counts of felony DWI for being in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired. He was convicted and ordered to serve 48 months in prison.
On appeal, Fleck argued that evidence that he was simply sleeping in his car, at his home, while intoxicated, was insufficient to support a finding that he was in physical control of the vehicle within the meaning of Minnesota's DWI statutes. The relevant statute provides that any individual who drives, operates, or is in physical control of any motor vehicle within the State of Minnesota while under the influence of alcohol or with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more is guilty of a crime. A person is in physical control of a vehicle if he "has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle."
Judge Stoneburner wrote, "the evidence of Fleck’s use of his vehicle was not inconsistent with driving the vehicle, and the keys were readily available to him." His felony DWI conviction was affirmed.The Court distinguished this case from another, State v. Pazderski , in which the Court found that an intoxicated, sleeping vehicle occupant should not have been charged with a DWI. Of importantance, in Pazderski, no keys ever found in the vehicle.
What's frustrating about the Fleck decision is the fact that the Court went out of it's way to make a specific finding that there was "no evidence" that Fleck had driven the vehicle in question while under the influence. Seems to me that a rigid application of the relevant standard in this instance leads to a grossly unjust result. It makes far better sense for an officer to have probable cause to arrest someone for a DWI if, for example, the car engine is warm, there are fresh tire tracks in the snow, or some other objective evidence of vehicle operation presents itself - rather than pure speculation about whether a car was, or will be, driven.
If you have been charged with a DWI, you need to know your rights. The DWI lawyers with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. provide a strong defense. Please call (763) 323-6555 or contact us through our online consultation form.
