PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI LAWYERS

CALL NOW: 949-305-0343 - FREE CONSULTATION - PAYMENT PLANS

DUI & DRIVING - VOLITIONAL MOVEMENT REQUIRED


CONTACT US TODAY


ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES


 
CLIENT REVIEWS &
PEER-REVIEW RATINGS



FOLLOW OUR DUI BLOGS


GOOGLE BLOGGER

OC DUI Lawyer Blog


GOOGLE BUSINESS PAGES


PETER F. IOCONA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

22982 LA CADENA DR #239
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653




THE SOCAL LAW NETWORK

23152 VERDUGO DR #201
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653

 



SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

  


  



ALAN CASTILLO AND PETER F.  IOCONA BOTH SELECTED AS ONE OF ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Top-Rated OC DUI Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA: RATED BY "SUPER LAWYERS" 2015-2016


Super Lawyer Rated - Peter F. Iocona


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Peter F. Iocona



PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE TOP CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Peter F. Iocona - Top One Percent Rated Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY OF DUI DEFENSE


Nationally Ranked Superior DUI Attorney


FEATURED IN THE "TOP 100" MAGAZINE AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP 100 LAW FIRMS



 "MEMBER" OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


DUI Defense Lawyer - California DUI Lawyers Association


"MEMBER" OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE


DUI Lawyer - National College for DUI Defense


"MEMBER" OF THE DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (DUIDLA)


DUI Defense Lawyer - DUIDLA Member

  
ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION



Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Alan Castillo


ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Alan Castillo - Top One Percent Rated Attorney



FORMER CONTRIBUTING EDITORS TO "CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING LAW "
(2003-2016)


California Drunk Driving Law - Contributing Editors (2003-2016)



LAWYER LEGION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AWARD 


Lawyer Legion - Top Attorney



"LEAD COUNSEL" RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS


Lead Counsel Rated Orange County DUI Attorneys



 LAWYER.COM VERIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATED "A+"


BBB Top Rating - Top-Rated DUI Attorneys



EVERY ATTORNEY IS RATED "10/10" OR "SUPERB" BY AVVO ATTORNEY RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RATED "SUPERB" "10/10" BY AVVO



Peter F. Iocona - Best Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RECEIVED "CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top Orange County DUI Attorney

 PETER F. IOCONA AWARDED 
"TOP CONTRIBUTOR" BY AVVO





ALAN CASTILLO RATED "SUPERB" BY AVVO





 
ALAN CASTILLO RECEIVED "CLIENTS' CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE





 MARLO CORDERO RATED
"SUPERB" BY AVVO


CALL NOW FOR A FREE DUI CONSULTATION:


Click to call

ON-CALL 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:


  


  


DUI & DRIVING - VOLITIONAL MOVEMENT REQUIRED

RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Peter F. Iocona - Top 100 Trial LawyersPeter F. Iocona - Super Lawyers Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer  Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated DUI Criminal Defense Attorney
 Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Defense Attorney

VOLITIONAL MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BE CHARGED WITH DUI IN CALIFORNIA

Both of the drunk driving offense statutes (CVC §§ 23152 and 23153), require that a defendant “drive” a motor vehicle. But what acts constitute driving? Where the defendant was seen operating a moving automobile on a highway there is almost never any controversy about whether or not he was driving the vehicle. But occasionally the arresting officer hasn’t seen any such acts which are indisputably driving. Instead, he has perhaps found the defendant asleep on the front seat of a vehicle which is legally parked, with the transmission in neutral, the headlights and wipers on, and the engine running.


MERCER V. DMV IS CONTROLLING - "VOLITIONAL MOVEMENT" IS REQUIRED TO CONSTITUTE "DRIVING" UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW

In Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, the California Supreme Court contrasted the term “drive,” commonly understood to require volitional movement of the vehicle, with the term “driver,” defined in CVC § 305 as one who is either driving or in actual physical control. The court pointed out that the phrase “actual physical control” does not appear anywhere in the drunk driving offense statutes. Further, the court noted that since “driver” is defined as one who drives or is in actual physical control, the two terms (drive vs. actual physical control) must have different meanings. Construing these penal statutes strictly, rather than broadly, as is required by Keeler v. Superior Court of Amador County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619, 631, the court held that mere actual physical control is not enough to constitute driving. Therefore the term: “drive”, at least for purposes of the drunk driving statutes, requires volitional movement of the vehicle.

The Mercer Supreme Court decision came down after the lower court’s published decision (Mercer v. DMV, former opinion at 222 Cal.App.3d 823), which relied upon Henslee v. DMV (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 445, to find driving without vehicle movement, and the contemporaneous decision in Music v. DMV (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 841, which found that driving required movement. These two were decided on extremely similar facts. The Supreme Court Mercer decision was plainly contrary to that in Henslee.

In Music, the defendant was asleep behind the wheel with the engine running, though the transmission was not in gear. Upon being awakened by the arresting officer and being asked to shut off his engine he “fumbled around trying to grab and find the keys and turn it off and instead of doing that he reached and started messing with the gear shift,” though “he did not even manage to put the truck in gear.” The court found that these activities did not amount to driving because the vehicle never moved.

In Mercer, the facts were nearly identical except the defendant had not been ordered to shut off the engine when he “started pulling gears [on the manual transmission] as if ... in his mind, he was already driving or about ready to drive.” The lower court’s decision, later overturned by the Supreme Court in Mercer, found driving without vehicle movement.

The Mercer court also pointed out some of the implications of its holding with respect to legality of arrest and proof of the offense at trial.

Regarding proof at trial, the court stated that its holding is not intended to require at trial any proof of volitional movement in the presence of the arresting officer. There must merely be proof that the defendant drove, and the proof must include volitional movement, but that proof can be by circumstantial evidence as pointed out in cases cited. (See §7:41.2 for more information on the use of circumstantial evidence at trial to prove driving.)

People v. Nelson (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1083 held that a defendant’s act of listening to messages on a handheld wireless telephone while stopped at a traffic light was done “while driving” in violation of Vehicle Code § 23123, which prohibits driving while using a wireless telephone that is not hands-free. The court distinguished Mercer and held that while the term “drive” requires volitional movement, the phrase “while driving” does not require movement contemporaneous with the use of the cell phone. The court applied rules of statutory construction and held that the legislature intended to apply Vehicle Code § 23123 to drivers who momentarily stop at any red lights or other momentary pauses.

Subsequent to Mercer, the Court of Appeal held that steering a car while someone else works the gas and brakes is driving. In re Queen T. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1143. If you are ever in this situation, you might want to argue that the person steering was not the driver, but only aided and abetted in driving (emergency doctrine) and should thus be entitled to an instruction on lesser included offenses See, e.g., People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332.

In Adler v. DMV (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 252, the court held that opening a car door on driver’s side is “driving” and in “operation” “in any manner” under CVC §§ 305 and 16000 (financial responsibility).

The court held similarly in the case of Cabral v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 907, that the opening of the door of a parked car was “use” or “operation” for purposes of Civil C. § 3333.4 restricting the damages allowable to uninsured drivers. A reading of these cases makes it clear that opening a car door and other similar “operating” activities are not “driving” for purposes of the drunk driving laws
.

Is it “driving” when a person moves a car a slight distance after an accident? 

In a 1937 Superior Court Appellate Department opinion entitled People v. Kelley (1937) 27 Cal.App.2d Supp. 771), the court stated:

To say that defendant “drove” his car on the highway would be to allow the general language of the statute to extend its operation beyond the scope of its obvious purpose. It would require that the word “drive” should be understood as embracing any movement of a car under its own power, however slight the movement and however urgent or imperative the necessity therefore, and however incapable the car, after an accident, might be of use for the purpose of travel, so long as it could be moved at all by its own power. The car in question was not being taken away, nor from one place to another. It was being moved into a safe location at the same place. It was being taken out of the way of traffic, not into it. In its disabled condition it could not have been driven or moved under its own power for any considerable distance.

DIRECTIONS TO PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW IN LAGUNA HILLS















Website Builder