Thus, the language of any state impaired driving statute defines the scope of interventions to reduce driving under the influence. Yet the language of state laws may not provide explicit guidance to law enforcement officers in the efforts to determine exactly what constitutes behavior that may lead to a prosecution for driving under the influence. The explicit language of any impaired driving statute “drives” the analysis of the conduct that may result in a conviction.
If a horse may not qualify as a vehicle for purposes of impaired driving statutes, might a horse-drawn buggy or a wagon result in an impaired driving conviction? The statutory language in numerous states supports a finding that operating a horse-drawn conveyance while intoxicated may result in a conviction. While perhaps more historically relevant than the current transportation environment, a New York court upheld a conviction for driving a horse-drawn stage coach while intoxicated, and an Arizona court found that driving a wagon and team of horses could result in a similar conviction. But more recently, in 2024, an Ohio court affirmed the conviction for impaired driving by the operator of a Amish horse-driven buggy. Ohio law prohibits the operation of any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley if, at the time of the operation, the driver is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them. The statute further broadly defines a “vehicle” as “every device… in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway…” The court reasoned that an Amish buggy “is a piece of equipment designed for transportation utilizing horses to draw the device,” and thus fits within the broad definition of a “vehicle” for purpose of Ohio’s impaired driving statutes.
Even operating a lawn mower on a public roadway while impaired may support a conviction for impaired driving. For instance, in Wisconsin, police received a tip from a citizen that an outstanding warrant existed for a man driving an orange Husqvarna riding lawn mower on a roadway, who minutes before left a local tavern. After confirming the warrant, a law enforcement officer initiated his lights and siren in an effort to stop the lawn mower, but the driver attempted to evade the officer by steering the mower through a grassy area and then into some trees, where he was eventually apprehended by the officer who pursued him on foot. Noticing a strong odor of alcohol and that the driver appeared “dazed and confused” and had difficulty keeping his balance, the officer attempted to perform field sobriety tests, but the driver refused and was then arrested. A subsequent blood draw revealed the driver’s BAC at .119. During his prosecution for operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, the driver admitted that operating a lawn mower met the requirements of Wisconsin law which requires that the person drive or operate a “motor vehicle.” The applicable statute defined a “motor vehicle” as “any vehicle which is self-propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail.” A “vehicle,” though, was more broadly defined by another statute to include “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains.” Despite his admission, though, the driver argued that the legislature could not have envisioned a riding lawn mower as falling within the definition of a “motor vehicle,” in part because a riding lawn mower need not be titled or registered and is designed for cutting grass, not for highway use. The court found that the driver operated the lawn mower on a highway as his means of transportation from the tavern and not for the purpose of cutting grass, casting a shadow over his argument. The Wisconsin court determined that the law defined the term “vehicle” in a very broad manner, suggesting legislative intent to bring a wide variety of vehicles within the purview of the impaired driving statutes. Similarly, a Louisiana court recently found that because a lawn mower works by means of a self-propelled motor, such a vehicle meets the statutory requirement of operating “any motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance” while intoxicated.
Riding a traditional bicycle, a device powered by human effort rather than by means of a self-propelled motor, proves more difficult to support an impaired-driving conviction. Several New Jersey courts have concluded that, because the statutory term “motor vehicle” includes only those propelled otherwise than by muscular power, the operation of a bicycle cannot result in an impaired driving conviction, reasoning further that if the legislature intended to include a pedal-powered bicycle within the prohibitions set forth in the state statute, it should simply have said so. A District of Columbia court reached a different conclusion, though, finding that a bicycle represents a “vehicle” for purposes of the local DUI law, as the statutory prohibition against impaired driving applied to the operation of any vehicle, and the relevant statute defined a “vehicle” broadly as “any appliance moved over a highway on wheels or traction tread…” Motorized bicycles, though, likely represent a different breed of vehicle for impaired driving analysis. In finding that a motorized bicycle meets the criteria necessary for a motor vehicle under state law, a Missouri court found that the statute’s evident purpose—to protect the public from intoxicated drivers—compelled the court to include such a vehicle within the statutory meaning of motor vehicle, as no sound reasoning existed to exclude motorized bicycle operators from the responsibility of operating the vehicle without the influence of intoxicants.
Operating a boat while impaired remains illegal in all fifty states, and under federal law. The applicable statutory prohibitions, though, depends on which jurisdiction exercises authority over the waterway and the applicable definition of a boat. In a recent Oregon case, law enforcement officers received a call describing a boater in distress on the Clackamas River. The investigating officer made contact with Peter Lambert, who admitted he operated a raft on the river while under the influence of an intoxicant. Lambert, though, challenged whether his raft qualified as a boat. Oregon law prohibited any person from operating, propelling or being in actual physical control of any boat on any waters while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled substance and defined a boat as “every description of watercraft… used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water, but does not include boathouses, floating homes, air mattresses, beach and water toys or single inner tubes,” and defined “operate” to mean navigate or otherwise use a boat. Claiming his conduct fell outside of the statutory prohibition of operating a boat while under the influence, Lambert likened his craft to a water toy or an air mattress. However, the arresting officer described Lambert’s craft as a raft being five feet in length when inflated, with sides and a bottom, and capable of transporting one or two people from one place to another on the river. Reasoning that the statute broadly defined a “boat,” and that the arresting officer testified that the raft served the purpose of moving persons from one point to another, the court found Lambert’s raft was not merely a toy or air mattress, but instead a means of transportation subject to the statutory prohibition against operating boat while intoxicated.
Courts have found other modes of transportation to be included among those for which use is prohibited while impaired, including farm tractors, snow machines (snow mobiles), golf carts, electric scooters,and ATVs. Some states specifically include motorized and/or electric bicycles within the definition of a “vehicle” for impaired driving analysis. Still, some legislatures maintain statutory exclusions from impaired driving laws for such devices as motorized wheelchairs, any electronic personal assistive mobility device, low-speed micromobility devices, and personal delivery devices.
As technological changes modify the way we move from one place to another, legislative modifications have expanded the definition of a motor vehicle to include previously uncontemplated means of transportation within the purview of impaired driving statutes. It remains to be seen, though, the extent to which various vehicles may fall under existing impaired driving statutes or whether legislative action may be required to include additional “vehicles,” the operation of which could pose a risk to public safety if operated while impaired.