People v. Cummings
176 Ill.App.3d 293, 125 Ill. Dec. 514, 530 N.E.2d 672 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intoxicated individual is in 'actual physical control' of a vehicle for the purposes of a DUI statute if they are found in the driver's seat with the physical capability of starting and moving the vehicle, even if asleep or if the vehicle is temporarily inoperable. Additionally, a driver's license obtained from a member state of the Driver License Compact is invalid if issued less than one year after the driver's home state license was revoked.
Facts:
- On May 16, 1986, University Park police officer B. Cronin found Timothy Cummings' car in a ditch.
- Cummings was slumped over the steering wheel, passed out.
- After being awakened, Cummings exhibited signs of intoxication, such as trouble standing and walking.
- An intoxilyzer test later revealed Cummings had a breath-alcohol content of 0.13.
- Cummings claimed he drove into the ditch while sober and only drank two beers from the backseat after realizing he was stuck.
- The car had a broken tie rod, was not driveable, and had to be towed from the ditch.
- At the time, Cummings' Illinois driver's license was revoked.
- Cummings possessed an Indiana driver's license that had been issued approximately five months after his Illinois license was revoked.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Cummings was charged in the circuit court of Will County, Illinois (the trial court) with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a breath-alcohol content greater than 0.10, and driving while his license was revoked.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Cummings on all charges.
- The trial court sentenced Cummings to 75 days in a work-release program.
- Cummings, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual have 'actual physical control' of a vehicle for the purposes of a DUI statute when found intoxicated and asleep in the driver's seat of a car that is in a ditch and temporarily inoperable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wombacher
Yes, an individual has 'actual physical control' of a vehicle under such circumstances because the law is concerned with the potential danger an intoxicated person poses by being in a position to operate a vehicle. The State is not required to prove the defendant was driving or intended to drive; rather, it need only prove they were in 'actual physical control.' The court reaffirmed its precedent from People v. Guynn, which held that a person can be in actual physical control even while asleep, to prevent them from waking and driving. While acknowledging that this rule could discourage intoxicated individuals from 'sleeping it off,' the court carved out a potential exception for rare cases where a defendant can show they were using the vehicle for shelter with no intent to drive. However, the court found Cummings' situation—being found drunk in a car in a ditch—was not such a rare case. Further, the car's inoperability was irrelevant because, under the amended statute, a car is a 'vehicle' unless it has been officially designated as a 'junk vehicle.' The court also upheld the conviction for driving with a revoked license, finding that the Indiana license was invalid under the Driver License Compact because it was issued less than one year after his Illinois license was revoked.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad scope of 'actual physical control' under Illinois DUI law, extending it to individuals in non-moving and even temporarily inoperable vehicles. However, it also introduces a significant potential modification to the established doctrine by suggesting a narrow 'sleep it off' defense. This creates a new factual inquiry for trial courts, which must now distinguish between a defendant who has crashed while driving drunk and one who is legitimately using their car as shelter with no intent to drive. The ruling also solidifies the enforcement of the Driver License Compact, clarifying that out-of-state licenses obtained in violation of its terms provide no defense against a charge of driving with a revoked license.
