subject: Maryland Ocean City Worcester County Driving Intoxicated Private Property Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] CRAIG DOUGLAS RETTIG v. STATE OF MARYLAND
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
April 13, 1994, Filed
At approximately 2:45 a.m. on January 31, 1992, Mr. Rettig was driving his three wheels, all-terrain motor vehicle around the backyard of his home in West Ocean City, Maryland, when he lost control of the vehicle and injured his arm.
When Maryland State Police Trooper arrived at the scene of the accident one-half hour later, he observed that Rettig had "bloodshot, glassy eyes and a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath." Trooper accompanied Rettig to the hospital, where he issued a field sobriety test and then arrested him. At that point, Rettig volunteered that he was "toasted" but maintained that he had the right to operate his all-terrain vehicle while intoxicated on his own property. Rettig was convicted in the District Court of Maryland of driving while intoxicated in violation of 21-902(a) of the Transportation Article. He appealed to the Circuit Court for Worcester County, pleading not guilty and waiving his right to a jury trial. At the trial de novo in the circuit court, Rettig defended on the ground that, although he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident, he could not be convicted under 21-902(a) since that provisionreached only driving conducted on public property and on private property used by the public generally, but did not reach purely private property such as Rettig's backyard. The circuit court rejected Rettig's defense, finding that, although the driving occurred on Rettig's own property, Maryland's drunk driving provision "applied throughout the State, . . . whether on private or public property." The circuit court convicted Rettig of driving while intoxicated, fined him $ 200, and assessed$ 126 in court costs. Defendant appealed.
Issue:
Whether driving while intoxicated, 21-902, applies when the intoxicated driving occurs on private property not open to the general public, namely the defendant's own backyard?
Discussion:
The Court states that "while 21-101.1 itself expressly covers highways and property used by the public in general, subpart (a)(2) of that section also states that "a different or additional place" may be provided for elsewhere in the Title. Consistent with 21-101.1(a)(2), such an additional place was provided for in 21-901. There, the Legislature declared that the provisions of subtitle 9 "apply throughout this State, whether on or off a highway." We believe that, by the broad language of 21-901, the General Assembly intended 21-902 to applyto land anywhere within the State of Maryland, whether on a public highway, on other public land open to vehicular traffic and used by the public in general, in a parking lot, on a private road or driveway, or indeed on any land surface including a backyard.
Conclusion:
Both courts below correctly held that petitioner's driving a vehicle in his backyard while intoxicated constituted a violation of 21-902(a). Judgment of the circuit court for Worcester County affirmed.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Ocean City Worcester County Driving Intoxicated Private Property Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
