ellemouse claim in State v. Hatfield

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Mo

In https://forum.freeadvice.com/drunk-driving-dui-dwi-27/legality-dwi-questionable-588597.html

ellemouse claimed (and then closed the thread) the case of State v. Hatfield (At: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1579015.html) stood for the proposition an officer needs to see a person driving to arrest them for DUI.

I didn't misread it as stating an officer needs to see him driving

In Hatfield, the court said (Emphasis mine):

However, Hatfield's mere intoxication near his vehicle, without evidence establishing when he last operated it, is insufficient to support his conviction for driving while intoxicated. Missouri courts have made clear that the State must present evidence linking in time the defendant's intoxication to the operation of a motor vehicle. “ ‘[T]ime is an element of importance’ that the state must prove to sustain its burden to show that a driver drove while intoxicated.” State v. Wilson, 273 S.W.3d 80, 82 (Mo.App .W.D.2008). Where intoxication is observed at a time separate from the operation of a motor vehicle, a “factfinder cannot determine that one who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at an established time was necessarily in that condition at some earlier unspecified moment without any evidence concerning the length of the interval involved.” State v. Davis, 217 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Ollison, 236 S.W.3d 66, 69 (Mo.App.W.D.2007).

While we recognize that “[t]he case law on this issue is very fact-specific,” State v. Byron, 222 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Mo.App.W.D .2007), a review of prior decisions addressing similar situations reflects that a DWI conviction cannot be sustained where the State fails to present evidence to support the inference that the defendant's intoxication was observed within a reasonable period of time following the defendant's operation of a motor vehicle, and that the defendant did not become intoxicated in the interim. Thus, in Davis, a police officer responded to a dispatch report about a car accident only to find no one in or around the vehicle. 217 S.W.3d at 359. A bystander told the officer that the vehicle's occupants had fled to an address two to three blocks away, and the officer “immediately” went there. Id. One of the men the officer found at the address admitted to crashing his car into a light pole. Id. The officer arrested the driver for driving while intoxicated after he detected “an odor of intoxicating beverage” and noticed that the driver's eyes were “glassy, watery, and bloodshot.” Id.

Davis reversed the defendant's DWI conviction based on the same gap in the evidence that exists here: the lack of evidence establishing a temporal connection between the defendant's admitted operation of a motor vehicle, and his observed intoxication at the time of arrest.

[T]he State's evidence established only that Davis drove the vehicle and that he was intoxicated when he was arrested. The State failed to present any evidence as to when Davis began drinking or how much he had to drink. There is nothing in the record to establish the approximate time that Davis was operating the vehicle or the time [the] accident occurred. None of the evidence indicated how much time elapsed between the accident and the arrest.

With the holding of:

Thus, to sustain a DWI conviction the State must establish, through direct or circumstantial evidence, the temporal connection between the defendant's last operation of a motor vehicle and his observed intoxication. Such evidence is lacking here.

As all told ellemouse; while the state needs to prove up the elements, the law does not require the officer seeing him drive.

Told ya so edit:
Further, the Hatfield court opined:

The State's evidence in this case established only that Hatfield drove the vehicle in question at the time of the accident and that he was intoxicated when Deputy Shanks arrived. Here, there is no evidence as to “the approximate time” that Hatfield was “operating the vehicle or the time [the] accident occurred,” or “how much time elapsed between the accident and the arrest.” See Davis, 217 S .W.3d at 361.

Deputy Shanks performed only minimal investigation at the scene of the accident, other than placing Hatfield under arrest.6 Deputy Shanks did not ask Hatfield whether he had driven the vehicle that day or when the accident occurred. He also could not remember if the automobile was running when he arrived at the scene, and could not testify definitively that the vehicle had been driven on that particular day. Further, Deputy Shanks admitted that he did not know when the fence damage and ruts in the ditch were caused, and acknowledged that the ruts could have existed for six months or even one year. Deputy Shanks did not check the hood or passenger compartment of the vehicle to see if it their temperature indicated recent use of the vehicle. He was also unable to recall where he located the keys to the vehicle, even though he considered that an “important” fact. Moreover, Deputy Shanks also failed to canvass the scene in an effort to locate any witnesses to the accident. The identity of the individual who provided the information leading to Deputy Shanks' dispatch to the scene is unknown, and the record does not reflect any information concerning the circumstances of the accident which the informant may have provided. In sum, it is impossible to determine from the record the approximate time Hatfield last operated the vehicle, and therefore the State failed to temporally connect Hatfield's intoxication when Deputy Shanks arrived at the scene to his previous operation of the vehicle.

In the prior thread, before this case was brought up, I wrote:

Case law in many states holds that a person under the influence in possession of keys near the vehicle was "in control" of the vehicle and subject to DUI laws. You will need an attorney to research if that is the case in your state. If not, and your husband did not admit anything and there is no other evidence (eyewitness, video tape, warm hood on the vehicle, etc.), you might have a case.

I love it when a post comes together.

 

[Just Blue]

Thank You Tranq!!

 

[LdiJ]

That was good Tranq, but we should also take into consideration whether or not the party is alone, because if he/she is not alone, then someone else could have been the designated driver.

 

[tranquility]

Yes, the facts matter.

 

[MIKE_G]

The original post mentioned that his 3rd dui was over 20 years ago? Still learning...

 

[Eekamouse]

Hey, as long as it isn't "eekamouse", I'm happy!