Can you be arrested in any state for riding a horse while under the influence? Or does the horse have a mind of his own?
Who is drunk, the rider or the horse?
A previous thread with cites to a number of incidents in which people were arrested for riding drunk, and bonus link to another previous thread.
As noted, you don’t have to be driving or even in a motor vehicle to get a DUI or a DWI. You also don’t have to be intoxicated to the legal limit of the state. That is proof of intoxication on its own but it can happen at lower levels. I wonder what the most tenuous prosecution for it was? Maybe some guy had an allergic reaction to a beer and tripped over someone else’s bicycle in a parking lot. Probably not but it seems like it could conceivably happen.
Need answer fast?
In some states you can also get a DUI for biking or skateboarding drunk.
I taught DUI school in Georgia for five years as a second job. A student I had claimed he not only got a DUI for riding a horse while intoxicated, but also had to pay a hefty fine for animal cruelty.
If the intention of DUI laws is to protect the general public from dangers posed by those with impaired judgement then why not? Seems to me a drunk “rider” on public streets could cause plenty of havoc.
I don’t agree with your premise that the intention of DUI laws are to protect the public from impaired judgment. If that was the case, a person could get a DUI because he called his old girlfriend at 3am.
I believe that the purpose of DUI laws is to protect the public from people who operate motor vehicles; almost 2 tons of steel capable of speeds in excess of 100mph.
If we take this down the slippery slope to bicycles, horses, tricycles,golf carts, and wheelchairs then we’ve made a mockery of the intention of the law.
Of course my point was about DUI laws protecting people on the roadways from those whose judgement is impaired by drink - you really don’t think an erratic horse rider, (bicyclist, whatever) in traffic is capable of causing a serious accident among the folks around them piloting those 2 ton cars??
We never got an answer to the latter in this thread.
That depends entirely on the particular wording of the law, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As we have seen, some laws explicitly cover the driving of animals and non-motor vehicles, so the intention is clear.
You can certainly be arrested for riding a horse drunk in the UK, there was a guy done for just that in my town some years ago.
As for drunk horses… Link!
A drunk pedestrian could cause the same accident. You wouldn’t suggest that he could be charged with DUI?
Just an example:
So, taking the state of WV as an example, it seems like a bicycle would not be eligible for DUI conviction, nor would a wheelchair. Hell, it looks like you can drive a damned train while drunk and be fine.
A horse? Is a horse a “device”?
As an aside, they have changed the law. It used to read operate a vehicle “on the public highways of this state”. That’s a big change. Used to be doing farm work on your own property you didn’t have to worry about being over the limit. Now it seems that you do.
Missed edit window:
Interesting how the DUI talks about a person who “drives” a vehicle, but there is no definition for drives. However a “driver” is defined as above.
What is this “actual physical control”? If I am in my home drunk off of my ass, but the car is in the garage, am I not in “actual physical control” of the vehicle? No?
What if they find me passed out behind the wheel on the side of the road? “Officer, as you can see, I am terribly intoxicated and not in physical control of myself, let alone this vehicle. Good day, sir.”
And since I’ve taken over the thread, I’ll keep going.
What is “is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway”? What if I am driving a golf cart on a golf course? I guess a golf cart MAY be transported on a highway, but not legally. Does that matter? So I could be driving a golf cart down I-77, but since it is impermissible for me to do so (even sober) then it doesn’t qualify as a vehicle, no?
And what is “human power”? Surely a car is not a natural creation. It was invented by humans, therefore a car is under “human power” and not eligible for DUI conviction.
And while a driver is one who has actual physical control, the statute only says you are guilty of DUI if you “drive”. So can you get off of a DUI on this “actual physical control” by stating that “Yes, I was, by definition, a driver of this vehicle, but I did not drive it, therefore I am not breaking the law. Thank you, sir, be on your way now to another fruitful day of fighting crime.”?
I know that a court wouldn’t agree with me, but didn’t they give me a loophole?