A high school athletic director and football coach in Gladewater, TX, Jerrod Baugh, was arrested by Longview, TX police last Sunday around 3:20 a.m. on suspicion of DWI at a McDonald’s restaurant. Police responded to a call from a McDonald’s employee who said that a man was passed out in the drive-thru with the car running. When Baugh refused to perform field sobriety tests, officers obtained a warrant to draw his blood and arrested him.
One of the elements of DWI is “operating” a motor vehicle. Are they elements of DWI satisfied even though his truck wasn’t moving with the gear in park, that officers never observed him driving, or that he wasn’t on public roadways when officers approached him? The Texas legislature has accounted for these potential issues for DWI prosecution. There are four elements of DWI and the state must have all four.
As of September 1, 1994, the elements of DWI are:
(1) The defendant was intoxicated
(2) while operating
(3) a motor vehicle
(4) in a public place
The legislature has broadened the elements as to avoid losing cases because of semantics . The concept of operating a motor vehicle characterizes much more than driving one. When officers happened upon Baugh, he was not driving, and they never observed him doing so, but he was operating a motor vehicle, because even though he was sleeping the truck was in park with the engine running. But how far does the concept of operating a motor vehicle actually go? It’s hard to put in in general terms. What if, for instance, he had instead paid for his food, driven to a parking space to eat it before falling asleep with his truck in park? the McDonald’s parking lot instead of in the drive-thru line? What if he were in his driveway at home, or even in his garage with the garage door open? These distinctions may or may not make a difference. One fact which courts often look at is whether or not the keys are in the ignition, even if the car is in park or even turned off.
Also, the Texas Legislature in 1994 broadened the scope of where a DWI could be happen to any “public place.” Before 1984, the statute limited DWI to a public road, highway, beach, street, or alley. Under the old statute, he would not have been driving while intoxicated because the drive-thru at McDonald’s cannot be classified as a public road, beach, street or alley.
Arguments that turn on subtle distinctions can be crucially important because the state can’t make their case unless they prove all of the elements of DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.
