People v. Davis
562 N.E.2d 1152, 205 Ill.App.3d 431, 150 Ill. Dec. 349 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is in 'actual physical control' of a vehicle for purposes of a DUI statute if they retain the capability of operating the vehicle, regardless of their position within the vehicle or their lack of intent to drive at that moment.
Facts:
- After drinking alcohol on the evening of February 13, 1989, the defendant was driving his vehicle from Chicago to Schaumburg.
- Around 1:30 a.m. on February 14, feeling unwell, the defendant pulled his vehicle onto the shoulder of an expressway.
- He turned off the engine but left the keys in the ignition and locked the vehicle's doors.
- The defendant then climbed over the center console into the back seat, zipped himself into a sleeping bag, and fell asleep.
- At approximately 4:24 a.m., Trooper Joseph Micci found the vehicle and observed the defendant, who was the sole occupant, asleep in the back.
- After law enforcement and paramedics managed to wake the defendant and get him out of the vehicle, Trooper Micci observed that his eyes were bloodshot, his breath had a strong odor of alcohol, and his speech was slurred.
Procedural Posture:
- After an Illinois State trooper arrested the defendant for driving under the influence, the Secretary of State initiated a statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges.
- The defendant filed a petition in the circuit court (trial court) seeking to rescind the suspension.
- Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the defendant's petition, finding that he was in actual physical control of his vehicle.
- The defendant appealed the circuit court's order to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
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 who is asleep in the back seat of a parked vehicle, with the keys in the ignition and the doors locked, have 'actual physical control' of the vehicle under the Illinois DUI statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scariano
Yes. An individual in such circumstances is in actual physical control of the vehicle. The court reasoned that 'actual physical control' does not require a person to be driving or even to intend to drive. The determination is a question of fact made on a case-by-case basis, focusing on whether the individual has the capability to operate the vehicle. The court identified several key factors indicating control: the defendant was the sole occupant, the keys were in the ignition, the doors were locked, and he had the physical ability to start the engine and move the vehicle at any moment. The court rejected the argument that being in the back seat negates control, stating that such a finding would 'completely vitiate the purpose of our drunk-driving statute,' which is a preventive measure intended to keep intoxicated individuals from being in a position to operate their vehicles.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of 'actual physical control' for DUI offenses in Illinois by clarifying that a person's physical location within the vehicle is not dispositive. The court prioritizes the preventive purpose of the DUI statute over an individual's subjective intent or actions to mitigate danger, such as pulling over to 'sleep it off.' This precedent makes it much more difficult for defendants found asleep in their vehicles to escape a DUI charge, establishing that the mere capability to operate the vehicle is sufficient to constitute control. It also signals that the 'sleeping it off' defense is extremely narrow and will likely fail if the person had recently been driving while intoxicated.
