State v. Brown
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 70
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Brown, a physically disabled individual, uses a battery-operated three-wheel mobility scooter as a substitute for walking.
- On July 29, 2009, Brown operated the scooter on Grand Rapids sidewalks and was arrested for DWI with an alcohol concentration of .17.
- The scooter has a maximum speed of 5.75 mph and is not licensed or insured as a motor vehicle, nor is it registerable as a vehicle.
- Statutes define motor vehicle as self-propelled but exclude electric personal assistive mobility devices; scooter is a wheelchair per statute definitions.
- The district court convicted Brown of third-degree DWI under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5).
- The court of appeals reverses, holding the scooter is not a motor vehicle and Brown is a pedestrian when using it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown drove a motor vehicle under §169A.20 | Brown argues scooter is not a motor vehicle. | State contends scooter may meet motor vehicle concepts under the statute when used as a vehicle. | Scooter is not a motor vehicle; Brown is a pedestrian; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boschee v. Duevel, 530 N.W.2d 834 (Minn.App.1995) (propelling oneself by chair or device does not change pedestrian status)
- State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922 (Minn.2006) (constitutional issues not reached where other basis exists)
- Molde v. Citi-Mortgage, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 36 (Minn.App.2010) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- American Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn.2000) (interpret statutes in light of surrounding provisions; avoid conflicting interpretations)
- Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536 (Minn.2007) (plain meaning governs when language clear and unambiguous)