A Washington DC DUI attorney will tell you that a DUI case does not require a moving car: in the District, being in physical control of a parked vehicle while intoxicated can be enough. According to reports, that is how Indianapolis Colts receiver Keenan Allen’s August 30, 2026 arrest began, with an officer walking up to an illegally parked car. Allen is charged in Indiana and has not been convicted; the facts are allegations from charging documents described by FOX59. In the video above, Nabeel Kibria, a partner at Monument Legal, explains how a parking conversation turns into a DUI investigation and what to do when an officer approaches your car.
Quick answer: In Washington, DC, an officer who approaches a parked car about a parking violation can expand the encounter into a DUI investigation if the officer observes signs of impairment. D.C. Code § 50-2206.11 covers anyone in “physical control” of a vehicle, and Bell v. District of Columbia (2016) held that keys in a pocket can be enough.
The parking violation gets the officer to the window; what the officer sees, smells and hears next decides whether it becomes a DUI investigation. Nabeel describes the usual sequence:
Courts generally do not ask why an officer chose to enforce a violation. In Whren v. United States (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a stop is valid when the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, even if the officer had other motives. Expanding the encounter is a separate question. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers generally need reasonable suspicion, meaning specific facts suggesting a crime, to turn a parking or traffic contact into a criminal investigation. That standard traces to Terry v. Ohio (1968). In the Allen case, the charging documents reportedly cite slurred speech, glassy eyes and the odor of alcohol.
Yes, if you are in physical control of the vehicle. D.C. Code § 50-2206.11 makes it illegal to “operate or be in physical control of any vehicle” while intoxicated or under the influence. Physical control means being in a position to start and drive the car. In Bell v. District of Columbia, No. 13-CT-1143 (D.C. 2016), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that a man sitting alone behind the wheel with the keys in his pocket was in physical control because he “was capable of starting the vehicle.” The engine does not need to be running, and the car does not need to move.
Approach:
Questions:
Roadside breath test:
Arrest:
Evidential test:
Stay calm, be polite, and provide your license and registration when asked. Then say clearly that you will not answer questions without a lawyer.
Whether to take or decline any particular test is a decision with legal tradeoffs that depend on your situation. The consequences of each choice are set by statute, and a lawyer can explain them for your specific facts.
Because silence alone may not protect you. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to incriminate yourself, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that you must claim the right clearly. In Salinas v. Texas (2013), a plurality of the Court held that simply staying quiet in response to a question did not invoke the privilege. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court required an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. A short, clear statement works: “Officer, I am going to remain silent, and I want to speak with a lawyer.”
“Hey officer, happy that you’re out here protecting and serving us all, glad to cooperate with you in whatever you’re doing, happy to help you do your job, but I just want to let you know that I’m not going to answer any questions.”
Nabeel Kibria, Partner, Monument Legal
Nabeel’s approach pairs respect with a firm boundary. You are not obligated to explain your evening, and answers like “just two drinks” are admissions that prosecutors can use.
The details of how an officer approached you, what was said and which tests were offered can matter a great deal in a DUI case. Every case turns on its own facts, and a consultation can help you understand yours.