In State v. Dawley, 201 Ariz. 285 (2001) the supreme court of Arizona gave the instruction, "actual physical control" of the vehicle if, based on the totality of the circumstances shown by the evidence, his potential use of the vehicle presented a real danger to himself or others. See Love, 182 Ariz. at 327, 897 P.2d at 629. The instruction should not single out any specific fact or group of facts, although presumably, the parties will emphasize in the argument the facts that support their respective theories of the case. The facts are, as stated above, there was no intent to harm the other or himself by driving the car. The car was parked and out of traffic. The supreme court of Arizona stated, "apparent ability to start and move a vehicle" adds nothing concrete to what is already inherent in "actual physical control." is an amorphous phrase and may not be helpful in finding what actual physical control is to "fairly assess whether a driver . . . [had] presented a danger to himself or others." Love, 182 Ariz. at 327, 894 P.2d at 629. 

 

In the case of State v. Rivera, 207 Ariz. 69 (Ct. App. 2004) I: The defendant was in control of the wheel by placing his hands on the wheel and forcing the car to turn, placing himself and others in danger indicating actual physical control. Berlinski's hands were not on the wheel, and he was not trying to control the movement of the vehicle. Berlinski was asleep and was forced awake after several attempts to wake him. Showing that there was no thought of operating the vehicle to place himself or others in danger. He did not try and flee, showing he was trying to act within the law of sleeping it off. Following State v. Dawley, 201 Ariz. 285, 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001)

How should write this into a memo?Give an explanation on this scenario

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Subject Legal Analysis of State v Berlinski DUI Case Date 22122023 To Dickson Muli From Faith Rachael Re State v Berlinski Actual Physical Control in ... View the full answer