Drunk But Not DUI

Behind wheel drunk, but legal

High court rules there's no evidence woman touched car controls
By Steven Elbow

A person simply sitting in the driver's seat of a parked, idling car cannot be charged with drunken driving, the state Supreme Court said today.

The court ruled that a Cross Plains woman found intoxicated at the wheel of her parked car was not guilty of drunken driving because there is no evidence she ever touched the controls of the car.

The case involves Kristin Haanstad, whom police found intoxicated in the driver's seat of her idling Chevrolet Cavalier in Baer Park in Cross Plains on May 26, 2003.

According to court records, Haanstad had been drinking at a bar for several hours when she handed her keys to a man she was with. The man drove Haanstad and a companion to Baer Park, where he had left his vehicle. The man parked Haanstad's car next to his vehicle and got out of the car, leaving Haanstad's car running with the lights on. He helped his companion into his vehicle and returned to Haanstad's car, where Haanstad had slid from the passenger seat to the driver's seat to let the man into the car so the two could discuss their relationship. She sat with her body and feet toward the man in the passenger seat, never touching the controls of the car.

At about 12:30 a.m., a Cross Plains officer approached the car, and despite the fact that Haanstad explained she had not driven the car, asked her to perform sobriety tests, then arrested her for drunken driving.

The case was thrown out by Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Nicks, but the state Appeals Court reversed Nicks' decision, ruling that Haanstad was in fact operating the vehicle and was guilty of drunken driving.

The Supreme Court today reversed the Appeals Court ruling because there was no evidence that Haanstad actually operated the car.

In a 6-0 decision - Justice Jon Wilcox didn't participate - Justice Louis Butler wrote that state statute specifically spells out what constitutes the operation of a motor vehicle.

The word "operate," the law reads, "means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion," Butler noted.

"The village does not dispute, and the Court of Appeals concluded, that Haanstad never physically manipulated or activated any of the vehicle's controls. ... Haanstad simply sat in the driver's seat with her feet and body pointed toward the passenger seat," Butler wrote.

Butler drew a sharp distinction between Haanstad's case and a case presented by the village as precedent. In that case a man was charged with drunken driving after he was found sleeping behind the wheel of his pickup truck on an interstate emergency ramp. The defendant admitted driving the truck to the spot where officers found him.

"In contrast, the evidence here is undisputed that Haanstad did not drive the car to the point where the officer found her behind the wheel," Butler wrote.

The village never claimed that Haanstad tried to drive the car or even touched the controls.

"As the Circuit Court judge so aptly stated, 'If she is guilty, she is guilty of sitting while intoxicated,' " Butler wrote.

Source:
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=72621&ntpid=0