Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Packers fan
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm trying to determine whether a person in the state of Georgia can receive a DUI while riding a bicycle.

Your law is organized a bit differently from CA law. I'm reading Title 40, akin to our Vehicle Code. 40-6-290 and 40-6-291 state the a bicycle is a "vehicle" per Title 40 but not a "motor vehicle". Your main DUI statute, 40-6-391, states that a person may receive a DUI driving a "vehicle". I'm pretty sure that this means you can receive a DUI in Georgia while riding a bicycle, but I want to be sure.

I don't have access to legal research software at the moment, so I'm doing my best on short notice with Google trying to sort this out.

Citing case or statute would be helpful if you can help me determine this. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Google says yes.
 

·
Packers fan
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Link?

I found a Georgia attorney's website that says yes, but his blog didn't explain why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts

·
Packers fan
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
You can't type it into Google yourself?
I did type it into Google, and found no statute beyond what I already found myself, and no case law with citation.

I am a lawyer, and I'm looking to find something I can show a judge, not for personal knowledge. A news story or blog entry is no good. I'd love to read case law on point, but have yet to find anything.

edit - this site says that DUI does not apply.

http://www.bike4fun.com/home/thelaw.html

Other sites say it does.

If I had access to Lexis Nexis or Westlaw right now, I wouldn't bother with Google, but unfortunately at the moment Google is what I've got. I'll have time to research this properly before I *need* to know, but I figured I'd ask here since we've got plenty of LEO and smart folks who may know the answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,025 Posts
Yes....the Georgia DUI law deals with someone in control of a 'moving vehicle' and does not limit it to a 'motor vehicle'. So anything that meets the definition of a vehicle falls under the law.


GA 40-1-1

(75) 'Vehicle' means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
 

·
Dereference Me!
Joined
·
6,883 Posts
Should be easy to determine with empirical experimentation. Two test subjects (one as a control). The primary test subject must imbibe large quantities of alcohol. The control subject must stay completely sober. Test subjects must then ride bicycles at independent locations in plain view of police officers in Georgia. Observe and document whether or not test subjects are arrested for DUI. Publish results. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,014 Posts
I did type it into Google, and found no statute beyond what I already found myself, and no case law with citation.

I am a lawyer, and I'm looking to find something I can show a judge, not for personal knowledge. A news story or blog entry is no good. I'd love to read case law on point, but have yet to find anything.

edit - this site says that DUI does not apply.

http://www.bike4fun.com/home/thelaw.html

Other sites say it does.

If I had access to Lexis Nexis or Westlaw right now, I wouldn't bother with Google, but unfortunately at the moment Google is what I've got. I'll have time to research this properly before I *need* to know, but I figured I'd ask here since we've got plenty of LEO and smart folks who may know the answer.
I do have access to lexis. Give me one minute, ahhh 1L's, aren't we great for our free research? I'll see if I can't find some case law real fast.

BAM - I think

Jones v. State, 206 Ga. App. 604, 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

Jones contends that because Count 2 does not allege that he [*605] drove or was in actual physical control of a moving vehicle, it does not state a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 (a) (4). Thus he asserts that a motion to arrest judgment would lie because he could admit that he did what he is accused of in this accusation without being guilty of an offense under our law because O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 (a) (4) punishes those who have a blood alcohol level of .12 grams or more within three hours of having driven or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Jones argues that he could admit to having driven or having been in actual physical control of a bicycle, or roller [***4] skates, or a wheel chair, etc., without committing a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 (a) (4). Therefore, he could admit the charge and still be innocent. See State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 485 (238 S.E.2d 38).

The validity of this argument generally lacks persuasiveness, because HN1O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 refers to moving vehicles, not motor vehicles, and a vehicle is defined as "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks." O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1 (75). Further, a motor vehicle is defined as "every vehicle which is self-propelled." O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1 (33). Moreover, the scope of the O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 is not limited to highways, as defined in O.C.G.A. § 40-1-1 (19), but applies elsewhere throughout the state. O.C.G.A. § 40-6-3 (a) (3).

In any event, we find this accusation sufficient to defeat a motion in arrest of judgment. HN2Although each count of an accusation must stand on its own when tested for legal sufficiency, one count of an accusation may incorporate another. Staples v. State, 199 Ga. App. 551, 552 (405 S.E.2d 551); [***5] Lee v. State, 81 Ga. App. 829, 831 (60 S.E.2d 177). Therefore, we find the reference to "such driving and being in actual physical control" is sufficient to incorporate into Count 2 the language of Count 1 that Jones did "drive and was in [**181] actual physical control of a moving vehicle." Although the manner in which the offense was averred falls short of serving a model of Code pleading, it was sufficient to charge the offense in plain terms and was sufficiently described to permit both Jones and the jury to understand the crime charged. Staples v. State, supra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,014 Posts
I guess I proved the exact opposite of what you were looking for. It would appear your client is probably SOL? This is a 1992 case though, maybe it's been overruled, I'll shepardize it and see what comes up.

The case I copied is cited by

Simmons v. State, 281 Ga. App. 252, 635 S.E.2d 849, 2006 Ga. App.

and

Bowman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 598, 490 S.E.2d 163, 1997 Ga. App.

Furthermore, certiorari was DENIED and there doesn't seem to be any other stuff associated with it. It appears to still be good law.
 

·
Semper Paratus
Joined
·
28,327 Posts
Yes and it has held up!
 

·
Packers fan
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thanks guys!
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top