State v. Boekelheide

“[T]he court will refuse to adopt the meaning that would lead to an absurd result that in inconsistent with the apparent policy of the legislation as a whole.” State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 283, 917 P2d 494 (1996).

Defendant appealed a DUII conviction. Defendant argued that because the law considers a bicyclist in a crosswalk a “pedestrian,” rather than an “operator of a vehicle”, the trial court erred in convicting him of DUII. To determine alleged statutory ambiguity “the court will refuse to adopt the meaning that would lead to an absurd result that in inconsistent with the apparent policy of the legislation as a whole.” State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 283, 917 P2d 494 (1996). The Court found the state vehicle code is explicit in its policy and held that defendant’s actions of operating his bicycle while intoxicated amounted to a valid DUII conviction. ORS 801.020(11) stated that the policy of the code is “[t]o provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state[]” and more specifically stated by ORS 814.410, to prevent “unsafe operation of a bicycle.” The court concluded it would be strange for the legislature to impose a duty “to provide maximum security” while sidestepping the issue of “unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk.” Affirmed.