State v. Greenman
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 4
Minn. Ct. App.2013Background
- Greenman operated a Segway on a Medina, Minnesota road after sunset and drifted across the center line, prompting police stop.
- The officer observed signs of intoxication; Greenman failed field sobriety tests and blood/breath testing showed .19 alcohol concentration.
- Greenman was charged with third-degree DWI (169A.20, subd. 1(5)) and related offenses, including failure to operate a personal assistive mobility device with due care.
- The district court dismissed the first two charges, finding that a Segway is not a motor vehicle under the impaired-driving code, relying on State v. Brown.
- The state appealed, contending the district court erred by treating Greenman as a pedestrian and not a driver of a motor vehicle.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a Segway is not a motor vehicle for purposes of the DWI statute and that Brown controls
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Segway is a motor vehicle under the DWI statute | State argued Segway is a motor vehicle under 169A.03, subd. 15 | Greenman argued Segway fits 169.011, subd. 92 and is excluded from motor vehicle; operates as pedestrian | Segway not a motor vehicle; charges dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 801 N.W.2d 186 (Minn.App.2011) (Segway-like devices excluded from ‘motor vehicle’; treat as pedestrian; harmonize 169 and 169A)
- State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.1998) (pretrial appeal standard requires critical impact on prosecution)
- Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn.2000) (interpret statutes reasonably; avoid conflicting interpretations)