The facts available for review do not support the court’s interpretation of APC. According to Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-902(A)(1) (2015), it is unlawful for any person to be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state who has a breath alcohol concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08) or more. The policy rationale of the legislature was to enable law enforcement to apprehend suspects that are intoxicated and at risk of driving a vehicle. Hughes v. State, 535 P.2d 1023, 1024 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).

The definition used by the Oklahoma Courts of actual physical control is “if a person has existing or present bodily restraint, directing influence, domination or regulation, of an automobile, while under the influence of intoxicating …show more content…
In Mason, the defendant was unconscious and intoxicated, behind the wheel of his running car. Id. at 1147. Because the defendant had started the engine, the court found that he undoubtedly “directed influence” over the vehicle. Id. at 1148. The court reasoned that at any moment, the defendant could have regained conscious and driven away; thus, the court presumed the defendant to be in actual physical control of the automobile. Id.

Yet, contrary to Mason, the engine does not have to be running for the court to find a person guilty of APC. See Hughes, 535 P.2d at 1023. In that case, the officer investigated a call about an illegally parked car. Upon the investigation, the defendant was found asleep in the driver’s seat, keys in the ignition, but, the engine was not running. Id. The court held that:

The defendant when arrested may have been exercising no conscious volition with regard to the vehicle, still there is a legitimate inference to be drawn that he placed himself behind the wheel of the vehicle and could have at any time started the automobile and driven away. He therefore had ‘actual physical control’ of the vehicle within the meaning of the …show more content…
Paul v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 313 P.3d 292, at 295 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). In Paul, the defendant appealed, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove that he intended to drive his vehicle while intoxicated. Id. at 294. The defendant was arrested after officers were called by a Love’s Country Store employee to do a welfare check on an individual who was unconscious inside a running vehicle. The officers arrived at the scene and found the defendant asleep, behind the wheel of his car, with the engine running and the headlights on. After the officer woke the defendant, it was determined that he was very intoxicated. Id.at 293. The court held that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for APC and that the State was not required to prove the defendant’s intent to drive the vehicle. Id. at