What does "Operating" a Motor Vehicle Mean?
Under Texas law, a person cannot be found guilty of driving while intoxicated unless there is sufficient proof that he/she "operated" a motor vehicle while intoxicated. See, Texas Penal Code section 49.94. The question often while arise in some DWI cases, "what does it mean to operate a motor vehicle." For example, let's say a person goes to a bar and has a few drinks. Then he/she walks out to his/her car but decides it is not a good idea to drive home. Instead, they get into the car, turn it on to listen to the radio and falls asleep intending to "sleep it off." The question is, "can the state charge you with driving while intoxicated?" The answer is YES.
Take a look at the cases below:
Freeman v. State, 69 S.W. 3d 374 (Tex. App--Dallas 2002)--In this case an officer observed a driver asleep in a parked vehicle with the motor running. The vehicle was parked against a curb with the motor running and the lights on. The court ruled that based on the totality of the circumstances it appeared that the defendant exerted personal effort in a manner that showed his intentional use of the vehicle for the purpose of driving and therefore sufficient proof of "operating" a motor vehicle.
Stagg v. DPS, 81 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002)--Here an officer observed a vehicle stopped in a lane of traffic with the engine running, the lights on and no apparent mechanical flaws with the vehicle. The court ruled that although no one actually witness the vehicle in motion, that the totality of the circumstances was enough to establish "operating."
Hearne v. State, 80 S.W. 3d 677 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002)--Here the defendant was found asleep behind the wheel with one hand on his head and the other on his waist. Further, the vehicle was running but in park. The court ruled that because the vehicle was running, registered to the defendant, the defendant was in the driver's seat and since no one else was around that there was enough to establish "operating."
What do the three cases above mean? Well, legally speaking, it is no difficult for officers' to show that a person was "operating" a motor vehicle. However, just because an officer can establish the legal sufficiency of a crime DOES NOT mean that the state will be able to establish factual sufficiency.
The jury can and will determine if the facts prove an element of a crime. Therefore, under the original hypothetical above, the state could most likely charge the person with DWI. However, a great argument could be made to a jury that the person was not "operating a motor vehicle but was merely doing the right thing by not driving off. These factual arguments can be very powerful in certain DWI cases.
