re: Could I have gotten a DUI?

Google taught me this about LA law:

The DWI statute says: "The crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated is the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance when any of the following conditions exist:" BAC over .08, on drugs, etc.

They don't have to prove you drove a vehicle on a public road, but they do have to prove you were "operating" it somewhere.

Cops often find people sleeping behind the wheel and use circumstantial evidence (keys in ignition, motor running, how else did he get there, etc. to prove he was operating.

Here is what a LA court said about "operating":

quote:

---

La. R.S. 14:98 does not require proof that the defendant was driving a vehicle, and the jurisprudence recognizes that the term “operating” is broader than the term “driving.” State v. Rossi, 98–1253 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/14/99), 734 So.2d 102, writ denied, 99–0605 (La.4/23/99), 742 So.2d 886. However, in order to operate a motor vehicle, defendant must have exercised some control or manipulation over the vehicle, such as steering, backing, or any physical handling of the controls for the purpose of putting the car in motion. Id. at 102–03. It is not necessary that these actions have any effect on the engine nor is it essential that the car move in order for the State to prove the element of operation. State v. Johnson, 580 So.2d 998, 1001 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991).

---

With regard to the public road issue, a Louisiana court said this:

quote:

---

Defendant was charged with one count of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, fourth offense or greater, in violation of La. R.S. 14:98(A)(E). As the trial court correctly noted, the enforcement of La. R.S. 14:98 is not limited to public thoroughfares. On at least two separate occasions, this Court has held that where a vehicle is driven while the driver is under the influence is not an element of the offenses enumerated in La. R.S. 14:98.

In State v. Cowden, 04–707 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/30/04), 889 So.2d 1075, 1087–88, writ denied, 04–3201 (La.4/8/05), 899 So.2d 2, this Court acknowledged: LSA–R.S. 14:98 does not include as an element of the crime that the offense must have occurred on public property, roads, or highways. Further, in State v. Landeche, 447 So.2d 1201 (La.App. 5 Cir.1984), this Court held that a person could be charged and convicted under LSA–R.S. 14:98, even if the operation of a motor vehicle was not on a public street or highway. Also, in State v. Smith, 93–1490 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/24/94), 638 So.2d 1212, 1215, the appellate court stated that, “[t]he DWI statute does not limit the prohibition of driving while intoxicated to driving on state highways, and evidence of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, even in the ditch, constitutes evidence of the offense.”

Further, as cited by this Court in Landeche, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Layssard, 310 So.2d 107, 110 (La.1975), stated: “The statute (R.S. 14:98) does not limit the prohibition of drunk driving to highways, and evidence of driving while intoxicated, even in the neighbor's yard, would constitute some evidence of the offense.” (Underlining provided.) Landeche, supra, at 1202. [Emphasis as in the original.]

---