Facing an Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) charge in Indiana can be daunting, especially if you were arrested in a parked or non-moving vehicle. A crucial aspect of these cases is whether the accused was actually "operating" the vehicle as defined by Indiana law. This blog will explore various scenarios where the court of appeals determined there was insufficient evidence to prove "operation," providing valuable insights for those recently arrested under similar circumstances.
Indiana law, particularly Ind. Code § 9-11-2-3, defines operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. However, "operation" involves more than just being inside the vehicle. The key question is whether there was actual physical control over the vehicle, especially when it was not moving.
In this case, a defendant was found asleep in their car with the engine running. A police officer discovered them, detected alcohol on their breath, and administered a breathalyzer test, which showed a BAC of .10%. The defendant admitted to driving to their current location at least two hours earlier. However, the court reversed their conviction. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to prove they were "operating" the vehicle at the time the officer found them. Simply starting the engine and being found asleep was not enough to sustain a conviction for operating while intoxicated. The state failed to establish when the defendant operated the vehicle relative to their BAC test, thus the statutory presumption linking BAC levels back to the time of operation did not apply.
In this case, a defendant was found in a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of I-74 with a passenger. The police observed signs of intoxication and administered field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. A chemical breath test revealed an alcohol concentration equivalent (ACE) of 0.152, conducted within the required three-hour window. The court initially upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the defendant admitted to driving from a wedding and was found on an emergency shoulder, suggesting recent operation of the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant had operated the vehicle while intoxicated.
In this case, a defendant and a passenger were found standing near a disabled vehicle. When later encountered walking along the road, the defendant showed signs of intoxication and admitted to drinking. The court found no evidence indicating when the defendant consumed alcohol. It could have been after the vehicle broke down, leading to the conclusion that the State failed to prove the defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated. The conviction was reversed.
In this case, a defendant was found asleep in their car, which was parked in a tavern parking lot with the engine running, lights on, and the heater operating. The vehicle was in park, and the defendant's seat was reclined. Despite the breathalyzer test showing a BAC of .14%, the court reversed the conviction. It ruled that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the defendant had been in actual physical control of the vehicle. The court emphasized that merely starting the engine was not sufficient to prove operation without additional evidence of intent to drive. The concurring opinion stressed the importance of proving the defendant's intent to operate the vehicle while intoxicated, highlighting that if the defendant was merely keeping warm while waiting for the effects of alcohol to subside, this would not support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
In several cases, Indiana courts have found insufficient evidence to prove "operation" where:
Vehicle Inoperability: Proving that the vehicle was inoperable at the time of the arrest can be a strong defense. If the vehicle could not start or move, it is challenging for the State to prove "operation."
Lack of Physical Control: Demonstrating that you did not have actual physical control over the vehicle can also serve as a defense. This includes being parked safely off the road and not intending to drive.
Reasonable Belief: If you had a reasonable belief that you were not operating the vehicle, such as waiting for a tow in a disabled vehicle, this can be an effective defense.
Understanding the specifics of what constitutes "operation" under Indiana's OWI laws is essential for anyone facing such charges. If you were arrested while in a parked or non-moving vehicle, exploring these defenses with your attorney can significantly impact the outcome of your case. Each case is unique, and past court decisions provide valuable insights into how your case might be viewed.