In many jurisdiction the term “drunk driving” is a misnomer because a person does not have to drink or drive to be convicted of drunk driving. For whatever reason, the legal system has curtailed motorists rights to make it easier for prosecutors to obtain a conviction. The double standard of judicial precedent that applies to drunk driving cases versus all other criminal charges is one of the most frustrating aspects of legal defense. Consequently, there are numerous instances where persons are wrongfully convicted of a serious criminal offense even though there was no proof of drinking or driving.
Actual physical control of a motor vehicle is not always necessary for a drink driving conviction. To constitute driving, there is usually a requirement that the driver have sufficient control over the vehicle. Of course, based upon recent interpretations of the law, this is not difficult to prove.
In once case, a motorist and his friend drove into a ditch, burying the car in mud. While making a futile attempt to dislodge the car, an officer arrived and charged the person behind the wheel with drunk driving. Although the vehicle was inoperable and there was no proof the person behind the wheel actually drove the car into the ditch, the court senselessly upheld the conviction claiming the driver had sufficient control of the vehicle.
Allaye Chan Law
1000 G Street, Suite 220
Sacramento, CA 95814