Supreme Court clears a defendant of three traffic safety offenses after a late-night incident on a Spanish highway. A drunk driver was found at a Madrid stretch of the A3, and observers reported a dramatic scene as the vehicle remained still while the driver attempted to steer. The court ruled that simply pushing a car does not amount to driving, and thus did not convict on those charges.
The ruling, reported by El Periódico de Catalunya from the Prensa Ibérica group, describes the events that occurred around 2:15 a.m. on July 25, 2020, when the person was found at kilometer 18.300 of the A3 motorway. The defendant claimed he was surprised at the service road’s location, and that he was merely pushing the vehicle with half his body in the driver’s seat while guiding the wheel with one hand.
Civil Guard officers noted clear signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, a flushed and sweaty face, slurred speech, stuttering, inconsistent expressions, and a strong odor of liquor on the breath. The court described these symptoms and explained that the individual faced a prison sentence of seven months, a two-year fine of eight euros per day, and a three-year and ten-month license suspension.
Breathalyzer results showed 1.00 mg/l of alcohol in the exhaled air, but the defendant later refused to undergo additional approved alcohol testing.
The Supreme Court did not question the level of intoxication; instead, it evaluated whether the act of pushing a car qualifies as driving. The court concluded that it does not, agreeing with the appellant that movement of the vehicle at the moment of discovery did not occur while the engine was running. The failure to demonstrate actual driving meant there could be no conviction for crimes against traffic safety based on driving.
Driving required
To reach this conclusion, the court invoked Article 379.2 of the Criminal Code, which penalizes operating a motor vehicle or a moped while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It then reviewed its jurisprudence on this crime, stating that in most cases, the act involves driving a vehicle that is in motion and powered by an engine, not merely pushing a stationary one.
The ruling relied on the fact that, although the defendant managed to move the vehicle out of a parking space and put on a helmet, the vehicle was neither started nor driven forward, even though that was the intention. The outcome bears similarities to the case under review, where the person was not actively controlling the vehicle.
The Supreme Court held that acquittal was appropriate even with intoxication, because the vehicle was off and the person remained outside while pushing it. The court noted that such behavior compromised road safety and could have caused damage, yet it could not be attributed to the act of driving a motor vehicle. From the moment the vehicle was turned off, the defendant did not exercise real control of the drive mechanisms. Steering from outside the vehicle does not meet the definition of driving, and the appellant could not be convicted on that basis. The court made a final observation: pushing the car, without active engine management, falls short of motor vehicle use and cannot support a conviction for driving crimes.