Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

Massachusetts DUI law defines operation of a motor vehicle as occurring whenever a person is intentionally manipulating some mechanical or electrical part of the vehicle, like the gear shift or the ignition, which alone or in sequence, will set the vehicle in motion. A recent case from the Connecticut Supreme Court, State v. Cyr, raises the issue of how far the court would extend the definition of operation.

In Cyr, the defendant started his car with a remote starter and was behind the wheel, but never inserted his key in the ignition. Without the key being in the ignition, the car could not be operated. The court held that the lack of the key being in the ignition was but a temporary impediment to the vehicle being operated. Interestingly, the court stated that if the vehicle could not be operated, or had a permanent impediment to being driven, it would hold that the operation element was not met.

I have had numerous cases involving operation defenses, including situations where the driver is behind the wheel of a parked car, outside of their car after an accident or outside of the car when the police receive a tip that the motorist is possibly under the influence. These situations present a possible defense to your OUI charged based on a lack of operation or an inability of the Commonwealth to prove operation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Commonwealth v. Plowman, a case decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the court held that sitting in a park car with the engine running does not compel a finding of operation. In that case, the trial judge precluded the defendant from providing his reasons for sitting in the drivers seat unrelated to operator of the motor vehicle. The result in the Cyr case appear to stretch the definition of operation and probably would not be followed by Massachusetts courts.