The Vermont Supreme Court has reinstated charges against a Franklin County man accused of steering a large, slow-moving piece of construction machinery called a boom lift while he was drunk.
Justices unanimously overturned a lower-court judge’s ruling that threw out charges against construction worker Scott S., whose attorneys had argued that the boom lift wasn’t a “motor vehicle” under state law for the purposes of drunken driving violations.
“That the machine travels at a relatively slow speed and is generally driven only relatively short distances is immaterial,” Associate Justice John Dooley wrote in the high court’s opinion, released Thursday. “The boom lift may proceed slowly, but it is a large piece of heavy machinery that could inflict personal injury or property damage if it ran into a person or personal or real property.”
Dooley defined a boom lift as “a motorized wheeled machine used to elevate and move workers around building sites” and as “a machine with four wheels and a gas or oil fueled motor. The operator stands in the bucket at the end of the lift arm to engage the motor to travel to the precise position required for work.”
The decision reinstates charges of DUI and driving with a suspended license. Judge Gregory Rainville of Vermont Superior Court in St. Albans had dismissed the case.
A St. Albans police officer arrested Scott at about 1:10 a.m. May 28, 2010, after the cop saw a man later identified as Scott drive the boom lift from the parking lot outside the Franklin County Courthouse to a location across the street, where the lift was to be refueled before that day’s work, Dooley wrote in recounting the case.
Scott had forgotten to move the lift during his workday.
“Suspicions aroused,” Dooley wrote in a five-page opinion, “the officer approached defendant, smelled a strong odor of intoxicants on him, and noticed he was slurring his words and swaying back and forth while standing still.”
A breath test registered a blood alcohol content of 0.203 percent, almost three times the legal limit for driving of 0.08, according to the opinion. Scott was charged, but Rainville ultimately concluded a boom lift was not a “motor vehicle” as defined by Vermont’s DUI statute and dismissed the charges.
State law defines “motor vehicle” as “all vehicles propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power,” and then lists exceptions, including farm tractors, “vehicles running only upon stationary rails or tacks, motorized highway building equipment, road making appliances, snowmobiles, or tracked vehicles or electric personal assistive mobility devices.”
Vermont Defender General Matthew Valerio, acting for Scott, argued that because a boom lift was designed to be used “in a stationary position” and is similar to exceptions to the motor-vehicle definition, the defendant shouldn’t have been charged.
The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that “the facts clearly establish that a boom lift is powered by a motor rather than muscular power” and, so, “falls within the express definition of a motor vehicle.”
“A boom lift is manifestly not a farm tractor” or any of the other listed exceptions, Dooley wrote.
Scott’s attorney argued, however, that the law hadn’t listed all exceptions and was intended to be merely “illustrative.” Because a boom lift’s purpose is not transportation, the defender general argued, it shouldn’t be considered a motor vehicle, any more than a rototiller — also unlisted — should be.
Dooley responded for the Supreme Court by citing the statute and its reference to “all vehicles.”
“The underlying principle,” he wrote, “is that if the Legislature made specific exceptions to the applicability of the provision and also wished to include another exception, it would have explicitly stated the additional exception.”
Deputy Franklin County State’s Attorney Heather Brochu said her office will prosecute the reinstated case against Scott.
If you’re too facing DUI charges in Vermont, it’s time you contacted a Vermont DUI attorney to discuss your legal options.
