The Supreme Court (TS) has ruled that driving a car manually while under the influence of alcohol is not a crime since pushing is not the same as driving.
In a ruling, reported by Europa Press, the Criminal Chamber agrees with a man who was sentenced to seven months in prison for a crime against traffic safety when he was caught trying to move his vehicle “standing but with half body placed in the driver’s seat” while “he was operating the steering wheel with his hand.”
The high court upholds his appeal and annuls the sentence, pointing out that “the verb used in the criminal offenses” for which he was convicted “is driving.” “Pushing is not driving and an extensive interpretation cannot be made to the detriment of the prisoner. In our case there was no true management of the driving mechanisms. Directing a steering wheel from outside the vehicle is not,” the magistrates explain.
The events date back to the early morning of July 25, 2020, when the man pushed his vehicle “despite having previously ingested alcoholic beverages that impaired his ability to drive.”
“Once he was requested by the Civil Guard agents, they noticed symptoms in the man such as the smell of alcohol, a red nose with a very red and sweaty face, slurred speech, stuttering, incoherent and repetitive phrases and the smell of alcohol on his strong breath. closely,” states the lower court ruling.
Required by local police officers from Rivas to undergo alcohol detection tests, the man returned a result of 1.00 mg/l in breathed air. However, he repeatedly refused to repeat the test when requested by the Civil Guard.
The Supreme Court insists that in this case “the vehicle was turned off and the accused was limited to pushing it, even when he was steering the wheel to control the direction,” despite recognizing that “in such conditions and with his psychic-physical faculties altered, was putting the safety of the road at risk and was in a position to cause some damage,” he adds.
However, the high court emphasizes that “such conduct cannot be predicated on the fact that the driving of a motor vehicle occurred, from the moment it was turned off and the accused remained outside of it, limiting himself to pushing it.”
The magistrates assure that “the criminal provision describes typical behavior such as driving a motor vehicle, that is, in motor traction, powered by mechanical force.” “And this does not occur when, as happens in the case examined, the vehicle is turned off and moves without the drag propelled by an engine,” they repeat.
