State v. Tehan
463 A.2d 403, 190 N.J. Super. 348 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey law, a person operating a bicycle while intoxicated is subject to the general duty to refrain from doing so and may face penalties such as fines, but is not subject to motor vehicle license revocation because that penalty, by its nature, does not apply to the unlicensed activity of operating a bicycle.
Facts:
- Michael Tehan was leaving his place of employment, a horse show, after having worked for a portion of the day.
- While there, Tehan visited an open bar on the premises and became intoxicated.
- Tehan stipulated that his level of intoxication would have violated the drunk driving statute had he been operating a motor vehicle.
- Tehan left the premises riding his bicycle.
- As Tehan exited the driveway on his bicycle, he kicked over some traffic cones.
- When police officers called for him to return, he belligerently kicked over another cone.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Tehan was charged in the Municipal Court of Bedminster Township with driving while under the influence of alcohol, simple assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.
- The assault charge was dropped, and Tehan pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
- Following a hearing in the municipal court, Tehan was found guilty of driving under the influence.
- The municipal court fined Tehan $250.00 and revoked his driving privilege for nine months.
- Tehan, as defendant-appellant, appealed the conviction and sentence for driving under the influence to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the penalty of motor vehicle license revocation under New Jersey's drunk driving statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, apply to a person convicted of operating a bicycle while intoxicated?
Opinions:
Majority - Meredith, J.S.C.
No. The penalty of motor vehicle license revocation under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 does not apply to an offense committed while operating a bicycle, although other penalties such as fines are applicable. New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1 subjects bicyclists to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except for provisions that 'by their nature can have no application.' The court reasoned that the duty to refrain from operating a vehicle while intoxicated applies to bicyclists because an intoxicated rider poses a danger to themselves and others. However, the penalty of revoking a motor vehicle driver's license, by its nature, cannot apply to a bicycling offense. The operation of a bicycle is an unlicensed activity, and there is no legal mechanism to bar a person from riding a bicycle as there is for driving a motor vehicle. Therefore, the punishment of license revocation does not fit the crime of operating a bicycle while intoxicated. The court concluded that while the license revocation must be reversed, penalties such as fines and incarceration do apply, as there is nothing in their nature that makes them inapplicable.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important distinction in New Jersey traffic law between the duties imposed upon bicyclists and the penalties for violating them. By interpreting the statutory phrase 'by their nature can have no application,' the court created a precedent for treating offenses committed on non-licensed vehicles differently from those committed in motor vehicles. This decision prevents the application of a disproportionate penalty (loss of driving privileges) for an offense unrelated to the operation of a motor vehicle. It provides a framework for lower courts to analyze which specific motor vehicle penalties can logically be applied to bicyclists, ensuring that the punishment fits the specific offense.
