An officer arrived on the scene and, noticing Nekolite’s state of intoxication, charged the man with a DUI. The case made its way before a judge who convicted Nekolite, deciding that the man had actual physical control of the vehicle at the time he was impaired and thus deserved to face punishment for his actions.
Nekolite’s drunk driving defense attorney appealed the case all the way up to the state Supreme Court and argued that Nekolite had done everything he could to be responsible that evening. Rather than drive drunk, he chose a designated driver who remained sober and safe to drive them both home. The fender bender was a complete accident and did not occur because Nekolite was actually operating the car.
The majority opinion stated that Nekolite was not using his vehicle in a usual or ordinary manner at the time of the arrest because he was standing outside of the vehicle and merely reaching across the seat. Given this lack of ordinary usage, Nekolite could not be said to have been in actual physical control of the truck and his conviction deserved to be dismissed.
Nekolite’s attorney says that his client’s case represents a good example of laws being applied in a manner far more broadly than they were ever intended. The lawyer believes that DUI laws are aimed at punishing purposeful conduct and other knowingly irresponsible decisions, not accidents like what occurred in this case.
Source: “South Dakota court overturns man’s DUI charge,” by The Associated Press, published at ThePublicOpinion.com.