Woman’s DUI case questions definition of vehicle
|
|
Cynthia Christensen’s motorized wheelchair was barely on the road when she collided with a van traveling down her street more than a year ago, sending her to the hospital. To make matters worse, the 45-year-old woman was charged with drunken driving while in a wheelchair. As the state of Florida vs. Cynthia Christensen winds its way through the courts, the major question facing a Hernando County judge is whether a person in a wheelchair can be guilty of DUI. The question, raised by Christensen’s attorney, Louis Brunoforte, in a motion to dismiss the case, has come down to how lawyers on both sides interpret what constitutes a vehicle under the state’s DUI law. In Florida, a person is presumed to be unable to drive safely if their blood-alcohol level exceeds 0.08 percent. Legal scholars say the debate is interesting because wheelchairs are not specifically mentioned in the DUI law. “Certainly, the prosecution could argue that the definition applied to vehicle under the DUI statute does not exclude wheelchairs, and had it intended to, they would have included it,” said Bobbi Flowers, a Stetson University College of Law professor. The facts of the case are not disputed. After cooking out and drinking beer with her fiance on Sept. 21, 2003, Christensen rolled to the front yard of her home on Sealawn Drive, where her wheelchair got stuck in the fine sand. Christensen fiddled with the joystick, and in an instant, her wheelchair hopped a 4-inch lip at the edge of her yard and collided with a passing Ford minivan. Months later, Christensen was cited on the DUI charge after a blood test she received at Oak Hill Hospital showed she registered a 0.12 blood-alcohol level. There was no dispute about Christensen’s impairment, but was she in control of a “vehicle”? The state argues that a wheelchair meets the definition of a vehicle. The law defines a vehicle 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.” That doesn’t mean wheelchairs, Brunoforte argues. “The Florida Legislature did not intend to subject individuals walking with the aid of a wheelchair to DUI statute,” Brunoforte wrote. In his motion to dismiss the charge, Brunoforte, who is working pro bono, argues that Christensen was charged with DUI while using her motorized wheelchair to “walk.” Therefore, she can be considered a pedestrian, who is categorized as a person “afoot,” under state law. “That is an interesting argument that may well have some merit,” said Pinellas County Judge Karl Grube, who has written several law review articles about impaired driving and motor vehicles. “If a wheelchair is the extension of one’s legs and if the law recognizes that a person in a wheelchair is a pedestrian and vehicles should yield to them, then they can make the argument.” If the court determines that an individual in a wheelchair can be guilty of DUI, Brunoforte will argue that the statute violates Christensen’s constitutional rights because the disabled won’t enjoy the same liberties as nondisabled people. Assistant State Attorney Peter Magrino, whose office is handling the case, contends that Christensen was in no way a pedestrian because her wheelchair provides transportation and does not give her the ability to walk. Further, she made the choice to drink and ride her wheelchair. “If you are sitting on something and it is moving, you are not afoot,” Magrino said. “The intent of the statute is to stop people from driving under the influence and to keep them off the highways no matter what they are operating. The reason behind it is safety.” Court documents show that Christensen suffers from degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis and scoliosis. According to court documents, Christensen uses the Hoveround, a motorized wheelchair that travels as fast as 5 mph, on the advice of her doctor and is able to walk a little. “I don’t know of anyone that has ruled specifically with respect to a wheelchair, but it could fit within the category of a vehicle,” Grube said. “You have to say that it is not a frivolous defense. I could see it being legitimized particularly if there is some precedence in other states. It is something that the court would have to look at further.” |