Minneapolis DWI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Larson (Decided September 23, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a bicycle becomes a motor vehicle subject to the Minnesota DWI laws if it has a motor on it.

In Larson, the appellant argued that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he operated a motor vehicle when riding his three-wheeled, motorized bicycle. The Court of Appeals rejected his contention noting that "Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (2016). Section 169A.03, subd. 15 defines “motor vehicle” as “every vehicle that is self-propelled .... The term includes motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, but does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power.” The DWI definitions point to chapter 169 for the definition of a “vehicle”: “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported . . . upon a highway.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, sub. 92 (2016)."

"The relevant statutes are unambiguous and they are only subject to one reasonable interpretation. We therefore construe the words of the statutes according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Accordingly, chapters 169A and 169 provide that when a person under the influence of alcohol operates a device that can transport a person or property upon a highway and is self-propelled, that person commits a crime. But operation of a device that is moved solely by human power while under the influence does not result in a crime under the DWI statutes."

"The motor-vehicle definition provides two requirements for a motor vehicle: (1) self-propelling and (2) not moved solely by human power. Here, the bicycle’s motor, which allows the bicycle to travel up to 40 miles-per-hour, makes the bicycle self-propelling. The motor and gas tank are affixed to the bicycle, and a chain connects the motor to the rear wheel to propel it. Although the record does not support this, Larson argues that his motorized bicycle can also operate solely by being pedaled, without the motor running. Even taking this as true, Larson’s motorized bicycle meets the definition of “motor vehicle” because the motor makes it a self-propelling vehicle, and the bicycle is not solely moved by human power because it has a self-propelling motor."

***

"Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Larson’s motorized bicycle falls under the “motor vehicle” definition, and therefore sufficient evidence supports his conviction."

Moral of the Story: It doesn't matter if you have your motor running.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case of the Week is the published Minnesota Court of Appeals decision of State v. Brown (decided June 13, 2011), which stands for the proposition that a motorized wheelchair or handicap scooter does not constitute a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the DWI law.

For some reason, Mr. Brown decided it would be a good idea to get drunk and drive his battery-operated three-wheel Legend Pride Mobility Scooter on the sidewalks of the City of Grand Rapids.  Mr. Brown drove his scooter to a car dealership and the dealer called the police as he was obviously drunk.  Mr. Brown was subsequently charged with a DWI and the issue in the case was whether his mobility scooter constituted a "motor vehicle".

The Minnesota DWI Statute defines a "motor vehicle", in relevant part, as "every vehicle which is self-propelled", excluding "an electronic personal assistive mobility device".  A "driver" is defined as "every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle". A "vehicle" is defined as "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway".

A separate Minnesota Statute, however, defines a "pedestrian" as "any person afoot or in a wheelchair". And a "wheelchair" is defined as including "any manual or motorized wheelchair, scooter, tricycle, or similar device used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking".

After reviewing all of the statutory definitions, the Minnesota Court of Appeals correctly held that, "It is plain that for purposes of the traffic regulations, Brown's scooter is a wheelchair and is not a motor vehicle and Brown, who uses the scooter as a substitute for walking, is, while operating his scooter, a pedestrian....We conclude that Brown's operation of his scooter as a substitute for walking does not make him the driver of a motor vehicle within the meaning of (the DWI statute) and does not subject him to criminal charges for operating the scooter while impaired."

Moral Of The Story:  If you are going to get drunk, walk or take a wheelchair.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer