SAN DIEGO, CA – California DUI cases require the prosecution to prove that the accused person actually drove the vehicle, and when no officer witnessed the driving, that element can become a focal point of the defense. San Diego DUI defense attorney Anna R. Yum of the Law Offices of Anna R. Yum (https://www.annayumlaw.com/blog/what-is-the-driving-defense/) discusses how the driving defense works, the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, and the scenarios in which the driving element is most often disputed.
According to San Diego DUI defense attorney Anna R. Yum, Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) and Section 23152(b) both require proof that the defendant drove a vehicle. Being near a car, having access to a car, or having the ability to drive is not the same as proof that a person actually drove. “The driving element is sometimes treated as an afterthought, but in cases where the officer did not see the vehicle move, it can become the central issue,” Yum explains. “Prosecutors still have the burden of proving driving beyond a reasonable doubt.”
San Diego DUI defense attorney Anna R. Yum notes that Section 23152(b) creates a rebuttable presumption: if a chemical test taken within three hours after driving shows a BAC of 0.08% or more, the law may treat that as evidence of BAC at the time of driving. Jurors may draw that conclusion, but they are not required to, and the presumption does not relieve the prosecution of proving that the defendant was the one driving.
Attorney Yum emphasizes that the driving defense often arises in specific scenarios. These include officers finding the driver asleep in a parked car, the driver standing outside the vehicle on the side of the road, the police arriving at the scene of a single-vehicle collision after the fact, or another person being present near the vehicle when officers arrive. In each situation, the officer did not personally observe the driving, and the prosecution must build its case using witness statements, the defendant’s own statements, circumstantial physical evidence, or some combination of the three.
The Law Offices of Anna R. Yum evaluates circumstantial evidence used to support an inference of driving, such as possession of the keys, the position of the driver’s seat, the warmth of the engine, the location of personal belongings, vehicle registration, and the absence of other people near the vehicle. Yum points out that key possession alone does not always prove who drove a car to a particular location, since another person may have driven and handed over the keys.
The firm also examines direct evidence, including eyewitness testimony and any statements the driver made to law enforcement. A person has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but the effect of silence or a statement depends on the circumstances, including custody, whether interrogation occurred, whether Miranda warnings were required and given, and how the statement was obtained. “Statements made at the roadside often become the strongest evidence in an otherwise weak driving case,” notes Yum. “Clearly invoking the right to remain silent and asking to speak with an attorney can make a meaningful difference.”
Where appropriate, the firm challenges witness identifications that resulted from suggestive procedures, evidence obtained through an unlawful traffic stop or detention, and police report assumptions not supported by specific facts. Statements obtained during custodial interrogation without proper Miranda warnings may be excluded from the prosecution’s case-in-chief, though Miranda issues are technical and fact-specific.
“The driving defense is not about denying that anyone drove the car,” observes Yum. “It is about testing whether the prosecution can prove that the defendant is the one who did, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For drivers facing DUI charges where the evidence of actual driving is unclear, a defense attorney can review police reports, body camera footage, witness statements, and physical evidence to determine whether the driving element can be challenged.
About Law Offices of Anna R. Yum:
Law Offices of Anna R. Yum is a San Diego-based criminal defense firm focused on DUI and other criminal matters. Led by founding attorney Anna R. Yum, a former Riverside County Deputy District Attorney, the firm represents clients throughout San Diego County in DUI cases involving disputed driving, chemical testing, and other evidentiary issues. For consultations, call (619) 233-4433.
Email: ayum@annayumlaw.com
Media Contact
Name
Law Offices of Anna R. Yum
Contact name
Anna R. Yum
Contact phone
(619) 233-4433
Contact address
1230 Columbia St #1140
City
San Diego
State
CA
Zip
92101
Country
United States
Url
https://www.annayumlaw.com/
