WHAT DOES "VEHICLE" MEAN UNDER RCW 46.61.502?

Today, I'm going to comment on certain legal issues in a DUI arrest in another state involving unusual circumstances and how the outcome of the case may be different if the incident had occurred in Washington. Back in March, police in Ohio arrested a man for DUI after he crashed a bar stool. That is not a typo. Yes, he was driving a bar stool. The man had attached a 5 horse power Briggs and Stratton lawn mower to his bar stool and was diving around his neighborhood until he crashed and injured himself.

The man called 911 because of his injuries and paramedics arrived at the scene. The police also arrived to "investigate an accident". When the police arrived, they said that the injured man had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. At this point, I'm sure the police had no interest in investigating an accident; they were concerned with investigating a DUI.

The first issue involves the Fourth Amendment- were the police justified in making contact with the suspect? Well, they did not stop him; he actually called 911 and requested assistance. Once the police arrived at the scene and noticed that the suspect appeared to be intoxicated and learned that he had been riding a bar stool powered by a lawn mower, they had at least reasonable suspicion that he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

While the man was being checked out by the paramedics, the police were asking him questions intended to be used to gather evidence for a DUI charge. The suspect, did not realize this in part probably due to his intoxication. It seems apparent from reading the police report, that the man had no idea that he could be possibly be charged with a DUI- he wasn't driving a car; he was riding a bar stool!

So he gave all kinds of incriminating information up to the police freely. They asked him several times how much he had to drink and he responded several times by saying, "a lot." This is a bad answer. That does not mean I suggest that you lie to the cops, but there are other ways of answering that question without lying and without incriminating yourself too much. The police pried further and tried to get the exact number of drinks the suspect had consumed. He eventually told him that he had drank 15 beers. The police also asked the man a number of questions concerning where he crashed the bar stool.

Is this questioning in violation of Miranda? No. That is because Miranda warnings only apply when a suspect is being questioned while in custody. Whether or not a person is in custody is often determined by whether that person feels as though he or she is free to leave. Here, the suspect had no idea that the cops were trying to gather evidence against him and he felt free to leave.

After the police learned that the suspect had drank fifteen beers, they asked him to perform field sobriety tests- only they didn't call them "field sobriety tests." Instead, the cop asked if the suspect would "perform a simple test involving his eyes." The suspect, still unaware that the cops were building a case against him, agreed. In Washington State, you can refuse to take the field sobriety tests without losing your driver's license. The refusal mat be used at trial to show consciousness of guilt, however.

After the cops gathered more incriminating evidence by administering "simple tests involving his eyes," the suspect asked them what the tests were for. The police told him that they were trying to find out if he was impaired at the time of the crash. At this point, the suspect caught on and said he was "done."

The suspect was taken to a hospital and the police wanted to draw his blood. The suspect, again aware that they were trying to build a case against him, refused. In Washington State, you can be required to submit to a blood draw only if you are incapable of giving a breath sample or if you are being treated in a hospital and the police of have probable cause to support a DUI charge. Here, the suspect met the Washington requirements and had he been in Washington, his driver's license could have been suspended for 1 year for the refusal. After refusing to submit to the blood draw, the cop issued the suspect for drunk driving.

Here's the big issue: Can you be convicted of DUI if you're riding a lawnmower? I haven't read the Ohio statutes regarding drunk driving. If their statute says that to be convicted of that crime you must have been driving a "motor vehicle" or "vehicle," we would have to also look up their statute defining those terms. In Washington, you can be convicted of DUI even if you weren't driving a motor vehicle; it does not have to be an automobile. RCW 46.61.502, the Washington statute that defines Driving Under the Influence, begins:

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state. . .

Notice that the statute simply says, "vehicle", not motor vehicle. RCW 46.04.670 defines the word, "vehicle":

"Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

So the Ohio man who was riding a lawnmower while under the influence could be convicted of DUI in Washington State, regardless of whether the lawn mower is considered to be a motor vehicle or not. Remember, you don't have to be driving an automobile to be convicted of DUI in Washington. Also remember that the cops are often trying to get you to give them information so they can put you in jail, even if you're injured and they seem like they're your friend and want to help you.