subject: Maryland Driving Intoxicated Convicted Accident Vehicle Injured Sobriety Test Arrested Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] CRAIG DOUGLAS RETTIG vCRAIG DOUGLAS RETTIG v. STATE OF MARYLAND
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
April 13, 1994, Filed
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 lost 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 alcoholic beverage on his breath." Trooper McQueeney accompanied Rettig to the hospital, where he issued a field sobriety test and then arrested him. The circuit court convicted Rettig of driving while intoxicated, fined him $ 200, and assessed $ 126 in court costs. Defendant appealed.
Issue
Whether 21-902 applies when the intoxicated driving occurs on private property not open to the general public, namely the defendant's own backyard?
The Court held that "by the broad language of 21-901, the General Assembly intended 21-902 to apply to land anywhere within the State of Maryland, whether on a public highway, on other public land open to vehicular traffic and used by the public in general, in a parking lot, on a private road or driveway, or indeed on any land surface including a backyard. We decline to read a "used by the public" limitation into 21-901 when nothing in the broadly-worded language of 21-101.1(a)(2) or 21-901 suggests that the Legislature intended to make the application of 21-902 depend upon the nature of the land involved. The history of 21-101.1 and 21-901 further supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to limit the application of 21-902 solely to highways and property used by the public in general. 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. The menace posed by an impaired driver on purely private property is sometimes no different from that posed by one who ventures onto property open to the public generally. Furthermore, there is never a guarantee that a vehicle driven by someone in an impaired condition will remain off the roadways for long. Both courts below correctly held that petitioner's driving a vehicle in his backyard while intoxicated constituted a violation of 21-902(a). This Court affirmed the Circuit Court Judgment.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
