Wells v. Com.
| Citation | 709 S.W.2d 847 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-CA-912-DG,85-CA-912-DG |
| Parties | David Michael WELLS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
Gene Lewter, Fayette County Legal Aid, Inc., Lexington, for appellant.
David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Connie Malone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Before COMBS, DUNN and HOWARD, JJ.
This Court granted discretionary review from a ruling of Fayette Circuit Court upholding on appeal the appellant's convictions for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and driving under a suspended or revoked license.
The appellant was tried before the Fayette District Court sitting without a jury. The facts are essentially undisputed. The police found the appellant asleep behind the wheel of his van in a parking lot outside the Continental Inn in Lexington. The appellant was alone, the key was in the ignition, and the van's motor was running. The transmission was in neutral and the emergency brake was engaged. A case of beer was in the van with three of four cans missing and one empty can was found. The arresting officer detected the odor of alcohol on the appellant who, upon emerging from the van, was unsteady on his feet. The appellant failed a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer test administered to him showed a reading of .17.
The trial court ruled that the term "operate" in KRS 189A.010(1) encompassed the conduct of the appellant and convicted the appellant of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and also of driving a motor vehicle with a revoked or suspended license. The appellant was sentenced to a prison term of nine months and fined $1,000 for operation under the influence. In addition, he was sentenced to six months in jail and fined $500 for driving with a revoked or suspended license. The jail terms were to be served concurrently. The conviction was appealed to the Fayette Circuit Court which upheld the appellant's conviction.
The appellant's principal contention is that his actions do not constitute operating a motor vehicle under KRS 189A.010(1).
KRS 189A.010(1) provides that "[n]o person shall operate a motor vehicle anywhere in this state while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance which may impair one's driving ability." The term "operate" is not defined in the statute, however KRS 189.010(6) defines "operator" as the person in actual physical control of the vehicle. Further, KRS 186.565(1), by which all persons operating a motor vehicle in Kentucky are deemed to consent to testing for blood alcohol content, also refers to the operation of a motor vehicle as "driving or actual physical control."
The court below relied on Newman v. Stinson, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 826 (1972), as the basis for its decision. In Newman, the defendant was arrested as he sat behind the steering wheel of his automobile nearly "passed out." The automobile was stopped at an intersection with the motor running and had not moved although the light had changed several times. The question presented to the court was whether the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was either driving the vehicle or in actual physical control of it that would provide cause for administering the breath analysis examination pursuant to KRS 186.565(1). The Court held that the circumstances of the defendant's arrest would reasonably support either belief. Thus, the Court concluded that "[i]n this case the appellee [defendant] may well have had very little control of himself but the motor vehicle was unquestionably subject to his control or lack of it as the case may have been." Id. at 828.
In DeHart v. Gray, Ky., 245 S.W.2d 434 (1952), cited in Newman, supra, the appellant was reported to the police for driving his truck in a dangerous manner. The police located the truck parked in the middle of the highway with the headlights on, the door open, and the motor running near a residence where the appellant was reported to be. The appellant staggered out of the residence, told the police the truck belonged to him and stepped on the vehicle's running board stating he would move the truck. The appellant was then arrested for drunken driving. Following disposition of the criminal charge, the appellant brought suit against the officers for false imprisonment. The appellant argued that the arrest was illegal because the officers had insufficient grounds for making an arrest without a warrant.
The Court pointed out there are numerous conflicting cases from other jurisdictions on what degree of conduct constitutes operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. The Court stated that the appellant was in physical control of the truck when he left the truck in the middle of the road with the engine running and the lights on. Further, he continued to exercise control when he returned to the vehicle announcing that he intended to drive it. Thus, the Court concluded that the evidence of "operation" was sufficient to justify the arrest.
We do not find that Newman, supra, or DeHart, supra, provide any hard and fast rules for determining when a person's actions constitute operation of a motor vehicle. However, we think these cases, along with some decisions from other jurisdictions, will provide guidance in reaching any decision in the instant case. We find that a number of factors have been used in determining whether a person operated or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle including: (1) whether or not the person in the vehicle was asleep or awake; (2) whether or not the motor was running; (3) the location of the vehicle and all of the circumstances bearing on how the vehicle arrived at that location; and (4) the intent of the person behind the wheel. See Annot., 93 A.L.R.3d 7 (1979).
In People v. Pomeroy, 419 Mich. 441, 355 N.W.2d 98 (1984), the intoxicated defendant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a car legally parked outside a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Woods
...the influence of alcohol or drugs. KRS 1 189A.010(1). Our case law has utilized a four-factor test, as set forth in Wells v. Commonwealth , 709 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. App. 1986), to assist in the determination of whether a driver has been operating a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute......
-
Johnson v. Ky Cnty. of Butler
...bearing on how the vehicle arrived at that location; and (4) the intent of the person behind the wheel.Wells v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. App. 1986). However, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances as this is not an exhaustive list of factors. Ratliff, 2013 WL 4......
-
Blades v. Com.
...It is this scenario that the now-overruled cases of Pence v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 825 S.W.2d 282 (1991) and Wells v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 709 S.W.2d 847 (1986), sought to address. The evidence in each of those cases was just as consistent with guilt as with innocence. Thus, the cases we......
-
Clark v. State
...operated it after becoming intoxicated. One of the cases upon which Judge Hoffman relied in the Hiegel decision was Wells v. Commonwealth (1986), Ky.App., 709 S.W.2d 847. Judge Hoffman wrote that in Wells, which had facts closely resembling the Hiegel facts, the "[F]ound no evidence that de......