Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/no-driving-defense
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:49:23+00:00

Document:
The "no driving" defense is a common legal defense to California DUI charges. It is used primarily when nobody (including the police) actually saw the defendant drive.
Not all vehicle crimes are observed by a police officer or other witness. This is especially true when there has been an accident or the car breaks down. The police typically don't arrive on the scene until driving has stopped. Often the people involved aren't in the car.
If there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one who drove a vehicle, the defendant cannot be convicted of a crime involving driving.
Under California law, someone “drives” when he or she moves a vehicle of his/her own volition.2 This means that putting the car in drive accidentally or "back seat" driving does not count. Here are some other ways in which the legal definition of "drive" may not be obvious.
but… Let's say that instead, Kelly falls asleep in the car. In her sleep, she accidentally knocks the gear shift into neutral and the car rolls forward and hits another car. Because she wasn't deliberately trying to move the car, under California law, she didn't drive it.
Under California law, someone drives when he or she steers a moving vehicle. This is true even if someone else is in the driver's seat and operating the accelerator and brakes.
Just sitting in the driver's seat with the engine running does not count as driving. In order to drive, someone must actually move a vehicle.
Under California law, just sitting in the driver's seat with the engine running does not count as driving.
Example: Mitchell leaves a party after consuming several glasses of scotch. When he gets to his car, he realizes he is drunk and decides to “sleep it off.” He starts the car so that he can put on the heat. Then he falls asleep.
The defendant's statements or admission that he/she drove.
That the person who drove was the defendant.
Let's take a closer look at each of these two types of evidence.
The prosecutor will often argue that the vehicle couldn't have gotten where it was unless someone drove it there.
Often, the only evidence that a defendant was the driver is the absence of other possible suspects. But this can be enough.
Often, the only evidence that a particular person was the driver is the absence of other possible suspects.
But... in some cases, it may be possible that a defendant was in the vehicle, but not visible to a witness.
The defendant was asleep in the back seat.
The defendant was reclining all the way back in the passenger seat.
And when there is evidence that there was more than one person in the car, there might be substantial doubt as to which was the driver. It all comes down to what the jury believes.
DUI isn't the only offense that requires proof that someone drove.
Penal Code 187, DUI second degree murder (“Watson” murder).
Ata least one California court has carved out an exception for moving a vehicle in an emergency. In that case, a drunk man got into a car that had been in an accident, solely so that he could move the car out of traffic and safely park it.
If you were charged with driving under the influence, we invite you to call our California DUI drivers for a free consultation.
Call us at 855-LAWFIRM or complete the form on this page to find out whether the "no driving" defense or other California DUI defenses might apply to your case.
Our California criminal and DUI law offices are located in and around Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Jose, Oakland, the San Francisco Bay area, and several nearby cities.
Additionally, our Las Vegas Nevada DUI defense attorneys represent clients accused of violating Nevada's DUI laws.
See e.g., Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) 2110. Driving Under the Inﬂuence (Veh. Code, § 23152(a)): ...To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:1. The defendant drove a vehicle..."
California Vehicle Code 305 VC ("A 'driver' is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term 'driver' does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.").
See also CALCRIM 2241. Driver and Driving Defined (Veh. Code, § 305): "[A driver is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.] [A person drives a vehicle when he or she intentionally causes it to move by exercising actual physical control over it. The person must cause the vehicle to move, but the movement may be slight.]"
Padilla v. Meese (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1022, 229 Cal.Rptr. 310.
Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 280 Cal.Rptr. 745. (“If the driver does not move the vehicle in the officer's presence at least a few inches, the offense of driving under the influence has not occurred in the officer's presence.”).
See also Henslee v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 445, 214 Cal.Rptr.249, in which an officer found the defendant sleeping in the driver's seat of her vehicle with the motor running and lights on. The vehicle was parked facing the wrong direction in a traffic lane. When the officer woke her, she affirmatively put the car's transmission into drive, causing the car to move forward several inches. The court held that on these facts, the defendant “drove” her vehicle while in the presence of the officer.
Facts based on Henslee v. Department of Motor Vehicles, endnote 4, at 451 (“[T]he term ‘drive' within the meaning of this code section includes the situation where, as here, an intoxicated individual actively asserts control over a vehicle and takes every step necessary to resume travel along the public road.”).
People v. Jordan (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 142, Cal.Rptr. 401 (holding that a person is “driving” when he or she is steering or controlling a vehicle which is in motion, even if the motor is off at the time.).
Facts based on People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 269 Cal.Rptr. 21 (“While the truck was in motion and Hernandez maintained control of it, he was posing a threat to public safety and thus, was driving within the meaning of section 23153 [DUI causing injury].”).
Facts based on In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 922.
Facts based on Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, endnote 4 (holding that a warrantless arrest for misdemeanor DUI was not lawful under such circumstances because the officer did not see the driver's vehicle move).
See also People v. Engleman (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, 172 Cal.Rptr. 474 (holding that a warrantless DUI arrest was unlawful where peace officers had found the defendant asleep at the wheel of his car parked with its engine running on the shoulder of a state highway.”).
See also Music v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 841, 270 Cal.Rptr. 692 (holding that defendant who was slumped over the steering wheel in a parked car, in a parking stall in front of a bar, did not drive when he accidentally hit the gear shirt after an officer woke him up, but the officer turned off the car's engine before it could move.).
People v. Quarles (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 1, 266 P.2d 68.
Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, endnote 4.
See same (“We do not hold that observed movement of a vehicle is necessary to support a conviction for “drunk driving” under section 23152. The lower courts have routinely upheld such convictions in the absence of evidence of observed movement of a vehicle.”).
See e.g., People v. Hanggi (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d Supp. 969, 70 Cal.Rptr. 540 (“From the combination of circumstances -- defendant's sitting in a vehicle in the center of the street-behind the wheel-engine running-lights on, it can be inferred that defendant must have placed himself in such position, and that he accomplished this by driving the car to the place at which he was found.).
People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 9, 222 Cal.Rptr. 540.
People v. Quarles, endnote 11 (holding that evidence supported conviction where witnesses testified they saw a car with a single occupant, and that defendant was the only one in the vicinity of the car at the scene of the accident).
People v. Wilson, endnote 16. (Upholding drunk driving conviction where defendant who was found asleep in the driver's seat was the sole occupant of the vehicle, and there was abundant evidence that he had been drinking prior to stopping his vehicle on the shoulder of the freeway).
People v. Quarles, endnote 11.
See same. (“The fact that witnesses had seen only the driver in the Buick when the car passed them was not conclusive evidence that there had been only one man in the car due to the fact that when the top of a 1941 Buick convertible is up an outside observer cannot determine whether or not a person is in the rear of the car.”).

References: § 23152
 § 305
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.