CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled last month that driving under the influence on private property is a crime, which Justice Brent D. Benjamin disagreed with in his separate opinion released this week.
In the majority opinion, which was released Oct. 26, Chief Justice Menis Ketchum wrote that they hold that an individual may lose his/her driver’s license if they are found driving a vehicle anywhere within the physical boundaries of West Virginia while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, even if that vehicle is being driven only upon private property not open to the general public.
In his separate opinion, Benjamin wrote that his colleagues “failed mightily” in this decision.
“Here, the majority not only badly misread applicable statutory law, it also sanctioned the infringement of two of our most basic natural rights: the right to do what one wants to do in the privacy of one’s estate so long as another is not harmed and the right to be left alone,” his opinion states.
The majority reversed a Monroe circuit judge’s ruling in the 4-1 decision last month.
On Feb. 4, 2012, at approximately 1 a.m., Joshua Beckett was driving an unlicensed all-terrain vehicle on family-owned farm land, in a field not open to the public, when he wrecked the ATV and was injured.
Beckett’s companion called 911 and then took him to the highway so that he could be loaded into an ambulance and taken to the hospital. An emergency medical technician in the ambulance noted the smell of alcohol on Beckett and later testified that he had said he consumed alcohol before the wreck.
The hospital tested Beckett’s blood content and it was shown to be 0.17 percent. Beckett was later charged with the criminal offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content greater than 0.15 percent. However, that charge was ultimately dismissed by a magistrate.
While the criminal charges were pending, the sheriff’s deputy notified the commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles that Beckett had been driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and, effective May 9, 2012, the commissioner entered an order revoking Beckett’s driving privilege for 45 days. Beckett appealed and the revocation was stayed.
At a hearing conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings, Beckett argued that his license could not be revoked because he was driving the ATV only on private, family-owned land that there was no evidence that he was driving on a public street or highway, according to the opinion.
The administrative law judge rejected Beckett’s argument and upheld the commissioner’s revocation order. Beckett then appealed to the circuit court and made the same argument. On Sept. 30, 2015, the circuit court reversed the decision from the OAH and concluded that because Beckett’s “actions did not occur on land open to public use,” the commissioner had no jurisdiction to revoke his driving privileges.
The commissioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the majority opinion, Ketchum wrote that if state law criminalizes the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the law contains no geographic constraint and the courts will not read into the statute a requirement that the vehicle be operated exclusively on a public highway.
“These courts have generally concluded that the phrase ‘within this state’ is not ambiguous and indicates the legislature’s intent to prohibit operation of a vehicle while intoxicated anywhere within the boundaries of the state, whether upon public or private land.”
Courts in neighboring states have reached the same conclusion, Ketchum wrote.
“We conclude that the Legislature’s definition of the phrase ‘in this state’ … extends the reach of our DUI laws to any individual driving a vehicle within the physical boundaries of West Virginia, even I the vehicle is driven only upon private property not open to the general public.”
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In his separate opinion, Benjamin wrote that Beckett did not infringe upon the rights o others or put others at risk by drinking and operating the ATV. Benjamin said that while it may be said that drinking and then operative the ATV was a stupid use of the property, it was his choice to act “stupidly.”
“The most solemn duty of an American court lies in its pledge to protect the rights and liberties of private citizens from encroachment by the State,” he wrote.
An ATV may not be used upon a highway — a necessary requisite to applicability of West Virginia Code to the conduct at issue, Benjamin wrote.
“While Mr. Beckett’s use of an ATV on his family farm after consuming alcohol may be condemned on any number of moral and health-related grounds, his use of the ATV simply is not covered by the statute for DUI purposes,” he said.
Patricia Reed, the commissioner of the WVDMV, is represented by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Assistant Attorney General Elaine L. Skorich.
Beckett is represented by Jeffry A. Pritt of Pritt Law Firm.
W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 15-1044
