STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VINCENT M. SPERANZA (10-02-020, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4456-19

Late on June 24, 2019, police responded to a report of an unconscious man in a vehicle and found Speranza asleep in the driver's seat of a car parked in the street with the engine running.
Officers roused him (after opening the unlocked door and removing him from the vehicle); he said he had come from a "friend's house" but could not identify the friend; police learned his home was about a mile away.
The parties stipulated that Speranza was intoxicated and that all elements of a per se or under-the-influence DWI were established except for operation of the vehicle.
Municipal Court convicted Speranza of DWI (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)); he was sentenced and appealed to the Law Division for a de novo trial.
The Law Division affirmed, finding the circumstances (behind the wheel, engine running, location between home and a friend’s house) supported an inference he had operated and intended to operate the vehicle.
Speranza appealed, arguing he was asleep/unconscious and lacked present intent to move the vehicle; the Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant "operated" a motor vehicle within N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) when found asleep behind the wheel with the engine running	State: engine running, defendant behind wheel in street and admission he "came from a friend's house" supports inference he had driven and intended to drive	Speranza: he was unconscious/asleep and did not move the car or have present intent to move it; Daly controls	Affirmed: operation proven by circumstantial evidence (engine running, location, admission); Daly distinguishable because facts there showed intent to sleep, not drive

State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (1987) (court treats "operate" broadly beyond actual driving)
State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467 (1987) (supports broad construction of "operate")
State v. Thompson, 462 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2020) (sleeping behind wheel with engine running can constitute operation; "possibility of motion" is relevant)
State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122 (1973) (operation not proven where defendant credibly testified he entered car to sleep, reclined seat, and ran motor to keep warm)
State v. Stiene, 203 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1985) ("possibility of motion" supports finding of operation)
State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005) (operation may be shown by driving, circumstances indicating prior driving, or admissions)