Minnesota Man Claims Self-driving Car Protects Him From DUI Charges

Every morning, I get an email. It’s a list of everyone arrested and charged with a crime in Minnesota over the last 24 hours. Lately, I’ve had to remind myself it’s only a list of people charged by state and local police; I don’t get any information from the feds or ICE. Frankly, it’s a long email to begin with.

Most of the time, I glance over the report and move on with my day. This morning, however, I saw an interesting entry. A man in Southeast Minnesota was arrested and charged with a DUI. His defense:

I wasn’t driving; I have a self-driving car.

I’m pretty sure that’s not going to work, but I’m not an attorney. So I asked a few local attorneys their take on that defense. Here’s what I found out:

Get our free mobile app

The issue is the definition of “actual physical control”. In Minnesota, that’s a pretty broad definition.

The provisions of Chapter 169A that make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle while impaired are contained in Minn. Stat. § 169A.20.  Subdivision 1:

[i]t is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle” while under the influence of alcohol.

Case law on the origins of “actual physical control” dates back to 1978, and a case in Glencoe, Minnesota:

The Juncewski Case:

On October 26, 1978, the Glencoe Police Department received a call of a man lying underneath his vehicle parked on the shoulder of the highway.  Officers located the vehicle and found a man asleep in the front driver’s seat and leaning against the steering wheel.  Officers thought that the motor to the pickup was running, but were unable to testify to that fact.  The key was in the ignition.  The man – identified as David Juncewski – failed a number of field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a chemical test.

He was charged with a DUI.

Juncewski argued in court that there was insufficient proof that he had actual physical control of his vehicle. The court sided with Mr. Juncewski. The case was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court found reasonable doubt in the Minnesota Statute and looked to nearby states for guidance. They found the answer in the North Dakota Supreme Court case State vs. Ghylin. In that decision, the court defined physical control as follows:

[T]he real purpose of the [actual physical control] statute is to deter individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles, except as passengers���.  [T]he “actual physical control” offense is a preventive measure intended to deter the drunken driver.  One who has been drinking intoxicating liquor should not be encouraged to test his driving ability on the highway, even for a short distance, where his life and the lives of others hang in the balance.

As a result, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against Juncewski, claiming:

Whether a motor must be running before a person may be in actual physical control is essentially a policy issue.  Because Minnesota laws designed to prevent driving while intoxicated are to be broadly construed in the public’s favor, we hold that Juncewski exercised the necessary control to have violated [the DWI statute].

Case law has been built upon that case for decades. As a result, "actual physical control" has grown to mean being in a position to operate or initiate movement of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, even if not actively driving. It is a broad legal term covering situations where an impaired person could easily start the vehicle and pose a danger to the public, such as sleeping in the driver's seat with keys accessible.

That’s where this individual’s case starts to fall apart. We know the engine was running, and the car was moving. A self-driving car may be a policy issue. A press of a button, or the quick jerk of the steering wheel, and the driver is actively operating the vehicle.

The spirit of the actual physical control laws is to deter an individual from getting into their car anywhere but the passenger seat. As a result, the laws are structured to deter the person, not the vehicle.

Of course, for actual legal advice, hire a good attorney. I'm a columnist.