Busted for DUI in a horse-drawn buggy

Elmer Stoltzfoos Fisher, a 22-year old Amish man in Pennsylvania was arrested for driving under the influence after an off-duty police officer came up on a horse-drawn buggy moving very slowly down the middle of the road in East Lampeter Township.

That's right, a horse-drawn buggy.

it turned out that Mr. Fisher had fallen asleep behind the reins. A subsequent breath test revealed an alleged alcohol concentration of .018.

Section 3802 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code makes it a criminal offense to operate a vehicle if you are intoxicated. The statute does not specify whether that vehicle must be motorized.

Section 3802.  Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance.

 (a) General impairment.

 (1)  An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of 

 the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such 

 that the individual is rendered incapable of safely driving, operating or being in 

 actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

 (2)  An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of 

 the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol such 

 that the alcohol concentration in the individual's blood or breath is at least .08% 

 but less than .10% within two hours after the individual has driven, operated or 

 been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.

What's also interesting about Pennsylvania's DUI statute is that you don't have to operating the vehicle in a public place to be charged with driving under the influence. I also find it interesting that Pennsylvania is one of the states that have legislated away retrograde extrapolation. There's no need for the state's expert to testify as to what the alcohol concentration might have been at the time of driving so long as the breath or blood test was conducted no more than two hours after the stop.

Of course I guess Mr. Fisher might argue that because he was asleep he was not in actual physical control of the vehicle at the time of the stop and therefore the state cannot prove the breath test was conducted within two hours of his being in control of the buggy.

But then Pennsylvania's got that covered, too. According to the Commonwealth's criminal code, if the state can't prove the test was taken within two hours of operating, the test result is admissible anyway.

Exception to two-hour rule —...where alcohol or controlled substance concentration in an individual’s blood or breath is an element of the offense, evidence of such alcohol or controlled substance concentration more than two hours after the individual has driven, operated or been in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle is sufficient to establish that element of the offense under the following circumstances:

• (1) where the Commonwealth shows good cause explaining why the chemical test could not be performed within two hours; and
• (2) where the Commonwealth establishes that the individual did not imbibe any alcohol or utilize a controlled substance between the time the individual was arrested and the time the sample was obtained.

In other words, it is what we say it is.