Parker v. State
1967 OK CR 7, 424 P.2d 997, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 246 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute prohibiting a person from being in "actual physical control" of a motor vehicle while intoxicated is not unconstitutionally vague. This offense is distinct from driving or operating a vehicle and criminalizes the act of having existing bodily restraint, directing influence, or domination over a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, even if the vehicle is not in motion.
Facts:
- On or about July 14, 1965, Jacob Ebey Parker was inside a 1965 Chevrolet Convertible.
- The vehicle was located on South Lewis Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- While inside the vehicle, Parker was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
- Police apprehended Parker while he was in this condition inside the car.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacob Ebey Parker was charged by information in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa.
- Parker entered a plea of not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial.
- The case was submitted to the trial judge on agreed stipulations of fact.
- The trial court found Parker guilty and sentenced him to a fine, jail time, and court costs.
- Parker filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- Parker, as plaintiff in error, perfected an appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the statutory phrase 'actual physical control of any motor vehicle' so vague and indefinite as to violate the due process clauses of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Brett, J.
No, the statutory phrase 'actual physical control of any motor vehicle' is not unconstitutionally vague or indefinite. The court adopts the definition from State v. Ruona, defining 'actual physical control' as 'existing or present bodily restraint, directing influence, domination or regulation' of a vehicle. The court reasons that the legislature, by adding this phrase in the disjunctive to the existing prohibition against 'driving' or 'operating' a vehicle while intoxicated, intentionally created a second, distinct offense. This addition was meant to cover situations where an intoxicated person has control of a vehicle but is not necessarily driving it or has it in motion, thereby serving a preventative public safety purpose. The words of the statute are to be interpreted in their ordinary, everyday sense, and the phrase 'actual physical control' is clear enough to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes and clarifies the 'actual physical control' (APC) offense in Oklahoma, distinguishing it from the traditional offense of 'driving under the influence' (DUI). It broadens the scope of vehicle-related intoxication offenses by allowing prosecution even when the vehicle is stationary. This creates a significant preventative tool for law enforcement, enabling them to arrest an intoxicated person who is in a position to operate a vehicle before they begin to drive. The ruling solidifies that the state has a compelling interest in preventing drunk driving at the earliest possible stage, impacting future cases involving individuals found intoxicated in parked cars.
