Rix v. Com., 714 S.E.2d 561

On June 21, 2008, officer observed a weaving vehicle on I-264 in Virginia Beach and stopped it; the driver, Stoilova, had been behind the wheel but swapped seats with Rix, who was then in the driver's seat with the engine running and keys in the ignition.
Rix exhibited odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot glassy eyes, and swayed; she refused a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer.
Rix was charged with second-offense operating while intoxicated and second-offense refusal to submit to a blood or breath test; conviction occurred in general district court and appellate review followed.
At a bench trial, the driver testified she had driven the car but swapped with Rix to avoid consequences; Rix testified she swapped to assist the driver due to deportation concerns.
The central legal question was whether Rix was an "operator" under the statutes; the car was fully operational with ignition on and engine running when she took control.
The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding Rix was an operator and upholding the convictions, plus $250 in damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rix an operator under the statutes when she took control?	Rix argues she was not the operator.	Commonwealth contends she was in actual physical control of a running vehicle.	Yes; Rix was an operator.

Nelson v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 212 (Va. 2011) (operating includes manipulating electrical or mechanical vehicle equipment)
Stevenson v. City of Falls Church, 243 Va. 434 (Va. 1992) (defines 'operating' as engaging machinery that can activate motive power)