SUMMARY OPINION
€1 Aрpellant, Gary Boyd Fenimore, was convicted in Oklzshoma County District Court, Case No. CF 2001-5650, of Driving Under the Influence, in violation of
[ 2 Appellant raises a single proposition of error:
Because Mr. Fenimore was on private property at the time he was stopped, and had only been observed driving on private property, no crime was committed and therefore, Mr. Fenimore's conviction must be reversed with instructions to dismiss.
After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs аnd exhibits of the parties, we have determined that Appellant's proposition has merit for the reasons set forth below.
18 The trial court should have sustained Appellant's motion to quash and demurrer, as the State's evidence did not prove Appellant committed an act which constituted a public offense. 22 0.8.2001, § 504(4). The stipulated evidence in this case does not establish that Appellant's driving under the influence or that his driving while privilege revoked occurred either on a highway, turnpike or public parking lot. Houston v. State,
I 4 There are persuasive public safety/public policy reasons to hold differently. The operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is an act which is dangerous to the public wherevеr it may occur-whether in a trailer park, a parking lot, or in the privately-maintained gated subdivisions across the metropolitan areas. However, until the Oklahoma legislature more broadly defines those areas where driving under the influence is prohibited or until it does not restrict the act of driving under the influence to certain areas, this Court cannot sustain a conviction under the facts of this case where the State did not prove Appellant drove his car while under the influence on a highway, turnpike or public parking lot. 1
*551
T5 Rules of statutory construction require criminal statutes be constructed strictly against the State and liberally in favor оf the accused. State v. Young,
T6 In an excellent article relative to the applicability of drunk driving statutes to specific locations, the author notes that a number of States have broader, less restrictive, statutes than the Oklahoma statute. Okasin-ski, Applicability, to Operation of Motor Vehicle on Private Proрerty, of Legislation Making Drunken Driving a Criminal Offense,
T7 If the languаge of Oklahoma's driving under the influence statute needs to be amended-whether by broadening the language оr by making it an all inclusive statute to prohibit driving under the influence anywhere in the State, it must be done by the Oklahoma Legislature. The growing number of trailer parks, apartment complexes, gated communities and similar privatе property locations have created a public safety question whether these areas shоuld be included in a broad statute for the protection of the public. We defer to the legislature to answer that question.
T8 In this case, Appellant was allegedly drunk driving on a road in a trailer park which was privatеly owned and not publicly maintained. He was not observed driving outside of the trailer park. The State did not prеsent any evidence showing the streets of the privately owned trailer park were open to the рublic or were adjacent to the public roadway. Under the facts presented here, we are unаble to sustain Appellant's convietion because the State did not prove he was driving on a highway, turnpike, or public parking lot. Accordingly, we find Appellant's convictions for felony Driving Under the Influence and Driving While Privilеge Revoked should be reversed and remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County with instructions to dismiss.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentences imposed in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF 2001-5650, are hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.
Notes
. Other states have mоre broadly defined prohibitions against drunk driving. Some jurisdictions have general legislation, without geographicаl restrictions, which prohibit drunk driving without restricting or describing where the offense must be committed. See eg. Alaska Stat. § 28.35.030 (2002); Ariz.Rеv.Stat. §§ 28-621, 28-1302, 28-1381 (2003); Ark.Code Ann. § 5- *551 65-103(a)(Michie 2002); Cal. Veh.Code § 23152 (West 2003); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-4-1301 (2003); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193(1)(a)(West 2003); Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-391 (West 2003); Indiana Code Ann. § 9-30-5-2 (Burns 2003 Supp.); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.19(A)(1)(Banks-Baldwin 2003). Other jurisdictions have broadened their drunk driving statutes by defining areas where drunk driving is prohibited to include private property-which is open to the public, see eg. Idaho Code § 18-8004 (2003) and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4511.19 (Banks-Baldwin 2003), and trailer parks, see Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a).