In Pennsylvania, the definition of “vehicle” under the DUI statute is broadly construed, encompassing more than just traditional automobiles. A recent decision by a Pennsylvania court reaffirmed that bicycles, including motorized variants, fall within the statutory framework for driving under the influence. If you are facing DUI charges, even in cases involving nontraditional vehicles, it is essential to understand how broadly these laws apply and to consult with an experienced Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney as soon as possible.
History of the Case
It is reported that the defendant was detained on a Pennsylvania highway while operating a battery-powered, two-wheeled cycle. The cycle lacked pedals, lights, and turn signals, and was incapable of displaying a license plate. Despite these deficiencies, the vehicle reached speeds of up to seventeen miles per hour. The defendant was convicted following a bench trial of DUI, operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock, and driving while his license was suspended or revoked.
It is alleged that this was not the defendant’s first encounter with Pennsylvania’s DUI statutes, as the conviction marked his third such offense. The trial court imposed a sentence that included three months of incarceration with eligibility for work release, followed by electronic monitoring and probation. The defendant thereafter filed an appeal, raising constitutional and statutory arguments against the scope of the DUI statute and the definition of electric bicycles under Pennsylvania law.
It is reported that the defendant argued the definition of “vehicle” in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802 was overly broad, rendering the statute unconstitutional because bicycles were encompassed within its terms. He further asserted that Pennsylvania’s statutory definition of electric bicycles should be modernized to exclude certain motorized two-wheeled devices that lack pedals, claiming that policy considerations such as environmental benefits and the reduced danger of bicycles compared to motor vehicles supported such a revision.
What Constitutes a Vehicle Under Pennsylvania DUI Laws
On appeal, the court rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge. The court emphasized that statutes enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly carry a strong presumption of constitutionality and may only be invalidated if they clearly, palpably, and plainly violate a constitutional provision. The defendant, however, failed to identify any specific constitutional provision allegedly violated by Section 3802 or provide a developed legal basis for his challenge. As such, his arguments fell short of the heavy burden required to strike down a statute.
The court also underscored that bicycles have long been recognized as “vehicles” under Pennsylvania law. Citing precedent, the court explained that both pedal-powered bicycles and motorized two-wheeled cycles qualify as vehicles under Section 102, which 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. Since even traditional bicycles satisfy this statutory definition, the defendant’s motorized e-bike, which was capable of speeds of up to seventeen miles per hour, undoubtedly qualified as a vehicle and, in fact, as a motor vehicle under Pennsylvania law.
The defendant further urged the court to reconsider the statutory definition of electric bicycles, arguing that Pennsylvania’s law was outdated and failed to account for modern technology. He claimed that pedal-less e-bikes were environmentally friendly and safe, citing examples from other states where such vehicles are treated differently for DUI purposes.
The court firmly declined to entertain these policy arguments, noting that the judiciary is not empowered to rewrite or modernize statutory language. The role of defining or amending statutory terms belongs exclusively to the legislature. The court further noted that considerations of environmental benefits or comparative safety risks posed by e-bikes are irrelevant to the determination of whether the defendant committed DUI under existing statutory provisions. Accordingly, the defendant’s second claim was also rejected.
Talk to a Trusted Pennsylvania DUI Defense Attorney
If you are facing DUI charges in Pennsylvania, whether involving an automobile, motorcycle, or even a bicycle, it is critical to recognize the broad reach of the state’s DUI statutes. Attorney Zachary B. Cooper is a trusted Pennsylvania DUI defense lawyer with a comprehensive understanding of trial and appellate practice. He can evaluate the strength of the evidence and the legal arguments available in your case. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact Attorney Cooper at (215) 542-0800 or reach out through the online contact form.