 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Madden v. State10/25/2001
from prosecution for [this] crime because the act was committed on private property." It follows that the trial court did not err in finding Madden guilty of DUI notwithstanding the fact that he was driving on private property.
Madden also argues that we should reverse his conviction for violating the restrictions of his limited license because the conduct occurred on a private thoroughfare. We find this argument equally unavailing.
Initially, we note that Madden bases his argument on OCGA § 40-6-3, which provides that
he provisions of this chapter relating to the operation of vehicles refer to the operation of vehicles upon highways except . . . [that] he provisions of this chapter shall apply to a vehicle operated at shopping centers or parking lots or similar areas which although privately owned are customarily used by the public as through streets or connector streets.
According to Madden, under the "plain language" of this statute, he cannot be convicted of conduct that occurred on a private thoroughfare. What Madden fails to acknowledge, however, is that the statute's plain language reveals that it applies only to "this chapter," which is chapter six. Madden was charged with violating chapter 5, which governs the licensing of drivers. Thus, Madden's argument must fail.
Moreover, we note that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Cook extends beyond DUI cases. As that Court noted, given the "widespread use of motor vehicles and the use of extensive private property for shopping centers and other purposes[,]" the State has a vested interest in protecting its citizens from those who abuse the privilege of driving. The law requiring that operators of motor vehicles be properly licensed was enacted for public safety. And those who drive without a license, or who violate the restrictions of a limited license, constitute a threat to public safety. Such danger is especially evident here, where Madden not only was driving in violation of his restricted license, but also was driving while under the influence of alcohol. It follows that the State was not barred from prosecuting Madden simply because his driving infractions occurred on private property.
Judgment affirmed.
Johnson, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|