Problem 1: In A State That Requires The Driving Of A Vehicle ✓ Solved

```html

Problem 1 In a state that requires the driving of a vehicle

In a state that requires the driving of a vehicle as part of the offense, an officer observed a vehicle, with its motor running, on the side of a deserted road approximately 10 miles from the nearest residence. The defendant had passed out in the backseat. ISSUE: Do these facts establish driving? The courts in these situations will look to determine if there was sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was in control of the vehicle and had driven it to that location. The fact that the incident occurred on a deserted road and the defendant was in the car normally will carry weight. The defendant must then rebut this evidence and put forth facts that raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge or jury. Normally, defendants in these situations contend that someone else was the driver and they were merely intoxicated passengers; however, the location of the defendant in the car will be considered vital in establishing this element. What if the defendant had passed out in the passenger’s side of the front seat? What if he was slumped over the wheel?

In a state that prohibits operation of a vehicle while under the influence, an officer observed a vehicle moving on a public road in an erratic manner. After stopping the car and approaching the driver’s side, the officer observed a 10-year-old behind the wheel and the defendant in the passenger seat. The defendant was obviously intoxicated and stated that the minor was her son. ISSUE: Was the defendant operating the vehicle within the meaning of the statute? In this situation, the courts will hold the defendant was not “operating” the vehicle. She may have legal custody or control of the vehicle by virtue of the relationship with the driver and may be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but she will probably not be convicted of DUI.

Under the same statute as in problem 2, the officer discovered the defendant in the vehicle with its engine running, but the gear shift was in the park position and the emergency brake was on. ISSUE: Was the defendant operating the vehicle within the meaning of the statute? Courts may find this element of the offense has been satisfied in these types of factual situations. The vehicle does not have to be in motion for the defendant to be operating it within the meaning of these statutes if the accused set in motion the operative machinery of the vehicle for purposes of putting it in motion.

Paper For Above Instructions

The assignment requires an exploration of two particular legal problems regarding the definition of "operating" a vehicle under certain DUI statutes. I will focus on Problem 2: the situation in which a ten-year-old is observed driving a vehicle while the defendant, who is obviously intoxicated, is seated in the passenger side. The main statute governing this situation is typically the DUI (Driving Under the Influence) statute, which prohibits the operation of a vehicle while impaired by drugs or alcohol.

According to the laws of most states, the definition of "operating" a vehicle does require that the individual is actually in control of the vehicle while intoxicating substances affect their ability to drive. In this case the courts must determine whether the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle, even though she was not behind the wheel.

The facts state that the child was driving the vehicle, while the defendant—an obviously intoxicated adult—was in the passenger seat and acknowledged the child as her son. Legally, the defendant may have custody of the vehicle by virtue of her relationship with the driver. However, this does not equate to “operating” the vehicle as per the statutory definition. The primary focus for the courts will be on whether or not the defendant exercised any control over the vehicle at the time it was in operation.

In the case of State Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, the court found that mere presence in a vehicle does not indicate operating it; hence, DUI charges may not be levied against individuals who were not actively driving even if they were intoxicated (State Dept. of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d). The adult’s intoxication only reflects on a potential legal responsibility for the safety of the minor, who is operating the vehicle.

Ultimately, the courts may conclude the defendant cannot be charged with DUI because she was not in actual control of the vehicle in the legal sense, notwithstanding her inebriated state. While the law may impose additional liability regarding contributing to the delinquency of a minor, it does not meet the threshold of DUI. Defendants can rebut charges by establishing that they were not operating nor in control of the vehicle during its operation.

Case law indicates that if the vehicle is operated without the intoxicated driver's involvement (as evidenced by the minor child driving), then DUI convictions are likely to fail (Underwood v. State, 578 So.2d 304). By emphasizing the unique situation of a minor being behind the wheel, the courts can distinguish the roles of both individuals within this instance.

Based on the outlined conditions and supportive case law, it’s likely the defendant would not face DUI charges due to her not being the one in actual control of the vehicle during its erratic driving; rather, it was her child who was driving. There is a necessity to establish a clear linkage between intoxication and the act of operating the vehicle to secure a DUI conviction successfully. Therefore, while the intoxicated adult may face other charges, she is unlikely to be convicted of DUI under the definitions set forth in DUI statutes.

References

  • State Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d
  • Underwood v. State, 578 So.2d 304
  • Abadinsky, H. (1993). Drug abuse. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  • Coate, D., & Grossman, M. (1987). Change in alcoholic beverage prices and legal drinking ages: Effects on youth alcohol use and motor vehicle mortality. Alcohol Health Res. World, 22.
  • DuPont, R. L. (1983). Teenage drug use: Opportunities for the pediatrician. J. Pediatr, 102(6), 1003–1007.
  • Etter, G. W. (2012). Gang investigation. In M. L. Birzer & C. Roberson (Eds.), Introduction to criminal investigation (pp. xx-xx). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  • Klein, M. (1997). The problem of street gangs and problem-oriented policing. In T. O. Shelley & A. C. Grant (Eds.), Problem-oriented policing: Crime-specific problems critical issues and making POP work (pp. 57–88). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
  • Moore, M. H., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (1989, September). The police and drugs. Perspectives on Policing, U.S. Department of Justice.
  • Moskowitz, J. M. (1989). The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature. J. Stud. Alcohol, 50, 54–88.

```

Related Assignments