Using a Witness to Challenge the Driving Element of an Arizona DUI
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced Arizona attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Managing Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed January 1, 2026
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
My friend was driving and I was in the passenger seat sleeping. He woke me up when we were on the side of the freeway saying that my car wasn’t working and that it won’t move. I was confused as I had just woken up. I hopped into the driver seat to see if I could tell what was wrong with the car. And as soon as I did I saw cop lights in the rear view mirror. They charged me with a dui. I tried to tell the officer when she was questioning me in the cell that I wasn’t driving and she said that I would have a chance to fight it in court. My friend said that he will talk on my behalf saying I wasn’t the driver. Do you think that with his statement the judge can void the dui?
Attorney Answer
Probably not on its own. Your friend's testimony helps, but it will not make a judge void the DUI, because Arizona's statute does not require that you were driving.
A.R.S. § 28-1381(A) makes it an offense to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. The statute does not define actual physical control and does not resolve borderline facts like a passenger who slides into the driver's seat after a breakdown. Arizona courts decide it case by case.
Potter v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 204 Ariz. 73, 59 P.3d 837 (App. 2002), is the case to understand, and it cuts both ways. Potter held that an officer can have reasonable grounds to believe a person was driving or in actual physical control even where the engine was off and the person was asleep in the seat — an officer may ultimately be proved wrong about physical control and the arrest still stands. Potter also collects the governing criminal-side rules: State v. Love, 182 Ariz. 324, 897 P.2d 626 (1995), rejected any bright-line test and left actual physical control to the fact finder on the totality of the circumstances; and State ex rel. O'Neill v. Brown, 182 Ariz. 525, 898 P.2d 474 (1995), holds the "safe harbor" does not shield a defendant from a driving charge if the State proves he drove while intoxicated before relinquishing control.
What that means for you: your friend's account goes to the fact finder along with everything else — where the keys were, whether the engine was running, where the car was stopped, how long you had been there, and what you told the officer. It is evidence, and it can be decisive. It is not an off switch.
What you can do
1. Read every piece of paperwork you were given for a notice of license suspension. If there is one, it carries its own deadline to request a hearing, that deadline is short, and it runs separately from your court case. 2. Have your friend write down his account now, dated, before memories move. 3. Tell your friend to speak with his own lawyer before he testifies. A witness who says he was the impaired driver may be creating exposure for himself. 4. Preserve the objective proof: body camera and dash camera footage, tow or roadside-assistance records, repair records showing the car was disabled, and any texts or calls from that night showing who was driving. 5. Stop discussing the facts with the officers or the prosecutor. Your account of who was driving is the case, and it should be presented once, through counsel.
Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship. Conversations are for informational purposes based on what you share.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in Arizona
- File or look up a case through the Arizona Judicial Branch.
- Get free civil legal help from AZLawHelp.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
The engine was not running. Doesn't that end it?
No. Potter held an officer could have reasonable grounds even with the engine off and the driver asleep, and Love rejected any bright-line test in favor of a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry for the fact finder. The engine being off is one fact among many.
What is the 'safe harbor' and does it protect me?
It is the idea that someone who pulls over and gives up control is not in actual physical control. Under O'Neill v. Brown, as collected in Potter, it does not shield you from a driving charge if the State can prove you drove while intoxicated before relinquishing control. It also does not decide the case by itself.
Will the judge decide this before trial?
Not usually. Because Love leaves actual physical control to the fact finder on the totality of the circumstances, this is normally resolved on the evidence rather than dismissed at the outset. Ask your lawyer whether the record here supports an earlier challenge to the sufficiency of proof.