Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160419_C324728_25_324728.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>People v. Rea</em></a>, No. 324728, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that driving a car while intoxicated while in the upper portion of one’s own driveway is not a criminal offense.  Defendant was charged with operating while intoxicated, MCL 257.625(1), which provides that a person shall not operate a vehicle “upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles” if the person is operating while intoxicated.  In the presence of a police office, Defendant—while intoxicated—drove his car from within his garage twenty-five feet down his driveway and then back into his garage.  The circuit court granted Defendant’s motion to quash the information, resulting in the charges being dismissed, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

contentpilot/introduction

Using the rules of grammar, the Court of Appeals relied on the plain language of the statute to resolve this question. It reasoned that “generally” modifies “accessible,” which together modify “other place.” As a result, using the dictionary definition of the relevant words, the Court held that the statute prohibits “intoxicated driving a highway or upon an ‘other place . . . generally accessible to the public.”&nbsp; Since the only place that Defendant drove in his driveway was next to his house and not abutting the road, the Court held that this area was not a place generally accessible to motor vehicles. Rather the location was a place where few vehicles operate, namely that of the homeowner and his guests. Since the legislature use the word “generally accessible” in the statute, it did not intend to criminalize intoxicated driving everywhere. Judge Jansen dissented, arguing that the issue of whether Defendant’s driveway was generally accessible to the public is a question for the trier of fact to be decided after hearing the evidence.&nbsp; Judge Jansen believes that evidence should have been presented regarding the frequency with which vehicles accessed the area of Defendant’s driveway in question.

core/paragraph

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

Driving drunk in driveway is not operating while intoxicated

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

Driving drunk in driveway is not operating while intoxicated

professionals