The petitioner, Craig Douglas Rettig, was convicted of driving a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Maryland Code (1977, 1992 Repl.Vol., 1993 Cum.Supp.), § 21-902(a) of the Transportation Article. 1 The sole issue before us is *421 whether § 21-902 applies when the intoxicated driving occurs on private property not open to the general public, namely the defendant’s own backyard.
At approximately 2:45 a.m. on January 31, 1992, Mr. Rettig was driving his three wheel, all-terrain motor vehicle around the backyard of his home in West Ocean City, Maryland, when he lоst control of the vehicle and injured his arm. When Maryland State Police Trooper McQueeney arrived at the scene of the accident one-half hour later, he observed that Rettig had “bloodshot, glassy eyes and a strong odor of аlcoholic beverage on his breath.” Trooper McQueeney accompanied Rettig to the hospital, where he issued a field sobriety test and then arrested him. At that point, Rettig volunteered that he was “toasted” but maintained that he hаd the right to operate his all-terrain vehicle while intoxicated on his own property.
On April 24,1992, Rettig was convicted in the District Court of Maryland of driving while intoxicated in violation of § 21-902(a) of the Transportation Article. He appealed to the Circuit Court for Worcester County, pleading not guilty and waiving his right to a jury trial. At the trial de novo in the circuit court, Rettig defended on the ground that, although he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident, he could not be convicted under § 21-902(a) since that provision reached only driving conducted on public property and on private property used by the public generally, but did not reach purely private property such as Rettig’s backyard. The circuit court rejected Rettig’s defense, finding that, although the driving occurred on Rettig’s own property, Maryland’s drunk driving provision “applie[d] throughout the State, ... whether on private or public property.” The circuit court convicted Rettig of driving while intoxicated, fined him- $200, and as *422 sessеd $126 in court costs. Rettig filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, presenting a single question as follows:
“Is it a violation of [Transportation Article] 21-902 to drive a vehicle while intoxicated on private property which is not used by the public?”
We granted the petition and shall answer the question in the affirmative.
Maryland’s prohibition on driving while intoxicated, § 21-902(a) of the Transportation Article, is contained within Title 21, entitled “Vehicle Laws — Rules of the Road.” Section 21-101.1 defines the general scoрe of Title 21 as follows:
“(a) In general. — The provisions of this title relating to the driving of vehicles refer only to the driving of vehicles on highways, except:
(1) As provided in subsection (b) of this section; and
(2) Where a different or additional place specifically is provided for.
(b) Applicability to private property. — (1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in violation of any provision of this title on any private property that is used by the public in general.
(2) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in violation of any provision of this title on any property that is owned by or under the control of this State or any of its political subdivisions, county boards of education, or community colleges and that is open to vehicular traffic and used by the public in general.
(3) Any person who violates any provision of this subsection is in violation оf the law to the same extent and is subject to the same penalty as if the motor vehicle were driven on a highway.”
In addition, subtitle 9 of Title 21, which includes § 21-902, has a separate scope provision which states:
Ҥ 21-901 Scope of subtitle.
“The provisions of this subtitle apply thrоughout this State, whether on or off a highway.”
*423 The petitioner Rettig primarily argues that, by construing § 21-901 in light of § 21-101.1, the § 21-902(a) prohibition on intoxicated driving extends only to highways and to private or public property open to the public generally, but not to other рrivate property. Rettig relies on the fact that the only areas specifically set forth in § 21-101.1 are highways and property used by the public in general. He states that the general language of § 21-901, ie., “throughout this State, whether on or off a highway,” should bе read to mean highways and property used by the public in general. 2
The petitioner’s argument, however, ignores the broad expansion which the Legislature included in § 21-101.1(a)(2). Thus, while § 21-101.1 itself expressly covers highways and property used by the public in general, subpart (a)(2) of that section also states that “a different or additional place” may be provided for elsewhere in the Title. Consistent with § 21-101.1(a)(2), such an additional place was provided for in § 21-901. There, the Legislature declared that the provisions of subtitle 9 “apply throughout this State, whether on or off a highway.”
When interpreting a statute, we assume that the words used have their ordinary and natural meaning.
Atkinson v. State,
The history of §§ 21-101.1 and 21-901 further supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to limit the appliсation of § 21-902 solely to highways and property used by the public in general. Prior to 1977, this State’s vehicle laws were contained in Code (1957, 1970 Repl.Vol., 1975 Cum.Supp.), Art. 66]6. The “rules of the road” were located in subtitle 11, which began with the consolidated scopе provision that would eventually become §§ 21-101.1 and 21-901. This scope provision, § 11-101, read as follows (emphasis added):
Ҥ 11-101. Provisions of subtitle refer to vehicles upon the highways; exceptions.
The provisions of this subtitle relating to the operation of vеhicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways except:
(1) Where a different place is specifically referred to in a given section; and
*425 (2) The provisions of Part IX of this subtitle and Subtitle 10 shall apply upon highwаys and elsewhere throughout the State.
(3) Except in Garrett and Somerset counties, any person operating a motor vehicle on private property which is used by the public in general in violation of the provisions of this subtitle shall be deеmed in violation of the law to the same extent as if the motor vehicle were being operated on a public highway and the violation carries the same penalty.
(4) Any person operating a motor vehicle on property owned, under control of the State or its political subdivisions, the county boards of education, or the community colleges, open to vehicular traffic and used by the public in general, in violation of the provisions of this subtitle shall be deemed in violation of the law to the same extent as if the motor vehicle were being operated on a public highway, and the violation carries the same penalty.”
Part IX, referred to in § 11-101 as applying “upon highways and elsewhere throughout the State,” included the prohibition on intoxicated driving:
Ҥ 11-902. Driving while intoxicated....
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or attempt to drive or to be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while he is in an intoxicated condition.”
The language of former § 11-101 reveals the clear legislative intent to prohibit the intoxicated driving of a vehicle regardless of the nature of the land on which it takes place. The phrase “elsewhere throughout the State” could hardly mean anything less.
See
59 Op.Atty.Gen. 659, 665 (1974). Moreоver, language identical to former § 11-101 in the vehicle codes of other jurisdictions has been held to encompass any land area. See
Dayhoff v. State,
In 1977, the Legislature recodified Maryland’s vehicle laws by repealing Art. 66)6 in its entirety and enacting Code (1977), §§ 11-101 through 27-105 of the Transportation Article in its place.
See
Ch. 14 of the Acts of 1977. Former § 11-101 was broken down into separate provisions as part of the 1977 recodification. The bulk of former § 11-101 became new § 21-101.1, which governs the scope of Title 21 generally.
See
Revisor’s Note to § 21-101.1, Ch. 14 of the Acts of 1977, at 991 (“This section presently appears as Art. 66]é, § 11-101”). Former subsection 11-101(2) was deleted from § 21-101.1’s general scope provision, was added with changes in wording but without substantive change as § 21-901 of the Transportation Article, and was placed directly within the new subtitle 9.
See
Revisor’s Note to § 21-101.1, Ch. 14 of the Acts of 1977, at 991 (“Present § 11-101(2), which relates to exceptions for ... Subtitle 9 of this title, [is] dеleted as unnecessary in light of ... [§] 21-901 to the same effect”); Revisor’s Note to § 21-901, Ch. 14 of the Acts of 1977, at 1045 (“This section, which is an exception to the general rule established in § 21-101.1 of this title, is new language derived without substantive change from Art. 66/6, § 11-101(2)”). As the Revisor’s Notes makе clear, new § 21-901 was intended to carry the same force as former § 11-101(2).
See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Seidel,
This interpretation of §§ 21-101.1 and 21-901 is certainly not unreasonable or illogical. We have recognized previously that Maryland’s drunk driving provisions generally were enacted for the protection of the public.
See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shrader,
Furthermore, there is never a guarantee that a vehicle driven by someone in an impaired condition will remain off the roadways for long.
See State v. Carroll, supra,
*428 Both courts below correctly held that petitioner’s driving a vehicle in his backyard while intoxicated constituted a violation of § 21-902(a).
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER.
Notes
. § 21-902 reads in relevant part as follows:
*421 "§ 21-902. Driving while intoxicated, under the influence of alcohol, or under the influence of a drug, a combination of аlcohol and a drug, or a controlled dangerous substance.
(a) Driving while intoxicated. — A person may not drive or attempt to drive any vehicle while intoxicated.”
. At oral argument, the petitioner presented an even narrower interpretation of § 21-101.1 than he did in his brief, arguing that by (a)(1) and (2), the Legislature intended to establish two necessary conditions for the private property exception to apply. Under this reading, the private property in question would have to be both of the type described in subsеction (b) and then be separately specified in each provision. The language of § 21-101.1 clearly cannot support this unwieldy interpretation.
. At other places in Title 21, the General Assembly has specified narrower categories of property than those generally described in § 21-101.1. See, e.g., § 21-903 (“A person may not consume an alcoholic beverage while driving a motor vehicle on a highway"); § 21-1201 ("With the exceptions stated in [subtitle 12],” the provisions of the subtitle relating to the operation of bicycles apply "whenever a bicycle is operated on any highway or on any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles”).