Safely Off the Roadway? Understanding Washington DUI Law After State v. Neill

Slug: washington-dui-safely-off-roadway-neill
Focus Keyphrase: Washington DUI safely off the roadway
Meta Description (≤156 characters): State v. Neill clarifies when Washington DUI defendants can use the “safely off the roadway” defense under RCW 46.61.504. Learn how Blanford Law can help.

Parked Isn’t Always Protected: DUI Physical Control in Washington

Can you be arrested for DUI even if you weren’t driving? In Washington, the answer is yes—under RCW 46.61.504, it’s a crime to be in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. That’s why the safely off the roadwaydefense is so important—and also so misunderstood.

In the landmark case State v. Neill, No. 89373-5 (Wash. 2014), the Washington Supreme Court directly addressed this issue, ruling that a person found parked in a private parking lot could not automatically claim the “safely off the roadway” defense unless they proved specific legal elements.

The Facts Behind State v. Neill

In Neill, the defendant was found intoxicated while parked in a private grocery store parking lot. He was in the driver’s seat with the engine off. Neill claimed that because he was in a private lot and not obstructing traffic, he should be entitled to the “safely off the roadway” defense under RCW 46.61.504(2).

However, the Washington Supreme Court disagreed. The Court emphasized that:

“Roadway” refers to places open to or used for public travel—even if privately owned.
The burden of proving the defense lies with the defendant.
Being parked in a lot isn’t enough; there must be proof that the vehicle was moved voluntarily to a safe locationbefore police contact.

What the Law Requires for This DUI Defense

To assert the “safely off the roadway” defense successfully in Washington, you must prove:

You moved the car yourself to a safe location.
The location posed no risk to others.
The movement occurred before law enforcement initiated contact.

As reaffirmed in State v. Neill, the defense is not automatic just because you weren’t driving. In fact, many defendants assume parking somewhere quiet is enough—but that’s often not the case.

Legal Lessons from Neill: When the Defense Fails

Washington courts take a strict approach to this defense. From Neill and earlier cases like State v. Votava and State v. Day, we learn:

The “roadway” includes private areas open to the public, like grocery store parking lots.
Intent to sleep it off is not a substitute for actual evidence of proactively moving the vehicle.
Physical control includes being in the driver’s seat with access to keys—even if the car is off.

These rulings underscore how carefully the law balances public safety with individual fairness.

How Blanford Law Defends DUI Physical Control Cases

At Blanford Law, we know that not every DUI charge is straightforward. If you were arrested while parked and believe your vehicle was “safely off the roadway,” we’ll help you:

Analyze your facts under the Neill standard.
Gather the right evidence—such as time stamps, surveillance footage, or GPS data.
Prepare a strong defense, including motions to dismiss if the statute’s requirements weren’t met.

Whether you’re charged with DUI or physical control, you need attorneys who know how to argue complex statutory defenses.

📞 Contact us today to discuss your case.

Final Thoughts: Be Proactive. Be Smart. Call Blanford Law.

The State v. Neill decision proves that the Washington DUI safely off the roadway defense must be built with care and legal precision. A simple mistake—like parking in the wrong place or assuming intent is enough—can cost you your license, freedom, and reputation.

Let Blanford Law help you protect your rights—and your future.