PA Supreme Court Rules Sleeping Behind Wheel Not Sufficient for DUI

Posted in DUI,License Suspension on June 27, 2025

In Commonwealth v. Bold, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that merely being found asleep in a running vehicle does not automatically qualify as “actual physical control” under Pennsylvania DUI laws.  In order to be charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania, the police do NOT need proof that the person was driving. A DUI charge can be filed if there is evidence that the person “had actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle”. This basically requires some proof that the person recently drove or intends to drive in the near future. A person sitting behind the wheel is obviously in actual physical control of the vehicle, but a DUI charges requires additional evidence or movement.

Background: What Happened in Bold v. Commonwealth?

• Facts: Bold was discovered unconscious in the driver’s seat of his vehicle that was parked in a mall lot with a bar nearby. Bold told the officer that he had been drinking at the bar and entered the car to “sleep it off.” The car’s engine was running and the headlights were on. This occurred in January, so a cold and dark evening, so a reasonable person would start a vehicle and activate the heater.
  • The officer arrested Bold for suspicion of DUI.  Bold refused the blood draw, so PennDOT suspended his license. Bold appealed the suspension and argued that he was not in “actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle”, so the officer’s request to submit to the blood draw was not lawful.
• Issue: Whether Bold was in “actual physical control” while sleeping behind the wheel of a running vehicle WITHOUT any evidence to suggest that Bold had recently driven or intended to drive.

💡 What This Means for Drivers in Pennsylvania

This case is not groundbreaking or earth-shattering. Whether or not a driver is in “actual physical control” is a very fact-specific, totality of the circumstances analysis.  In Bold, he was parked in a lot with a bar nearby where he claimed to have been drinking, so there was no evidence of recent driving. Bold’s vehicle was running, which could show an intent to drive, but because this occurred in January, it is also reasonable to believe that he was running the car for heat.

• Factors to Consider When Evaluating “Actual Physical Control”:
  • keys in ignition or car running – both are factors that make it appear more likely that the person intends to drive – but running vehicle can be explained for heat purposes or to charge a cell phone
  • parking location – if legally parked in a lot with a drinking establishment nearby, there is less evidence of recent driving – but if vehicle is illegally parked, or parked along the road or far from a bar, then it appears that the person was recently driving
  • seatbelt on – shows intent to drive because a person sleeping it off in the vehicle has no reason to wear a seatbelt
  • headlights on or off – on gives rise to an inference of intent to drive – this is probably less important now as most vehicles have autorun headlights
  • you’re a driver found in a parked, running vehicle while intoxicated—but not observed driving—you may have a strong defense against DUI-related penalties and license suspension. Attorneys should use Bold v. Commonwealth as a precedent to contest “control” assumptions made by law enforcement.

📥 Need Legal Help?

If you’re facing a DUI charge in Pennsylvania based on “actual physical control,” consult with an experienced DUI attorney who understands this new legal standard.

For a free case review, contact JD Law by email or leave a message at (814) 689-9139. Email is the preferred method of communication, as phone calls are directed to voicemail due to the high volume of spam and unsolicited calls.