High Court Affirms Conviction

August 15, 2006 By LYNNE TUOHY, Courant Staff Writer

Responsible drunks don't put, or leave, the key in the ignition.

The state Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a key in the ignition, even if the engine is not running, is grounds for charging an intoxicated person with operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

The court upheld the conviction of Andrew Haight, who was found asleep behind the wheel of his legally parked Lexus by a New Canaan police officer just after midnight Oct. 20, 2001. His car key was in the ignition, in either the "off" or "accessory" position - a deduction based on the chimes that sounded when Officer Kevin J. Dowling opened the car door.

"[State law] prohibits operating a motor vehicle while under the influence rather than merely driving a motor vehicle under the influence," Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote. "It is well settled that 'operating' encompasses a broader range of conduct than does 'driving.'

State laws, however, don't articulate just what that difference is.

So the Supreme Court looked back to a 1939 ruling, in a case in which a car was driven into a New London bank. When police arrived, they found an intoxicated Lyman Swift sitting behind the wheel attempting to start the car while his companion was trying to push it. Swift insisted he hadn't been driving the car and had moved to the driver's seat only when his companion got out to attempt to push the car.

The Supreme Court in that case ultimately upheld the instruction given to the jury by the trial judge, who said Swift could be found guilty of operating the vehicle if he "Intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which, alone or in sequence, will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle."

The justices in Monday's ruling noted that "the present case is analogous to Swift's."

"In both cases, the defendant failed to set the vehicle in motion or even run the vehicle's motor," Zarella wrote. "Nothing in our definition of 'operation' requires the vehicle to be in motion or its motor to be running. ... We conclude that [Haight's] act of inserting the key into the ignition constituted operation of a motor vehicle within the meaning of state law.

The court said it didn't matter whether the key was in the off or the accessory position.

Haight's attorney, Brenden Leydon, said he relied on a 1960 Supreme Court decision in which the court found there was insufficient evidence that a driver slumped over the steering wheel of his car, with the key in the ignition, was operating under the influence. But the court said in Monday's ruling that the presence of the key in the ignition was irrelevant in the 1960 decision. In that case, the two sides had agreed that the driver was operating the vehicle; the dispute was over whether there was sufficient evidence of intoxication.

Leydon said the ruling in Haight's case reflects "the general policy of getting tough on drunk driving, which is understandable."

"Our position all along was it was better for people to sleep it off, rather than get out of town quickly," Leydon said. "That was our policy reliance."

Leydon said Haight had entered his car after having dinner and drinks at a local restaurant. "There was no evidence he ever moved the car at all."

Source: http://www.courant.com

Tags: Connecticut DUI |  DUI News