Court Rules Drunk Driving Laws Don't Apply To Riding Horses

[matcom]

<snip>

PITTSBURGH -- The state Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's drunken driving law can't be enforced against people on horseback, a decision that inspired the dissenting justice to wax poetic.

The court ruled Wednesday in a case against two men in Mercer County in 2002. Riders Keith Travis, 41, and Richard Noel, 49, were charged with drunken driving along with a man driving a pickup who allegedly rear-ended the horse Travis was riding away from a bar on a dark country road.

All three men failed field sobriety tests, police said, but a judge threw out the charges against Noel and Travis after they argued that the word "vehicles" in the state's drunken-driving law doesn't apply to horses.

Prosecutors said the code specifically includes people riding animals. But the majority justices cited a similar case in Utah, where judges said such a statute is confusing and too vague about which regulations would apply to animals as well as vehicles.

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/3754029/detail.html

[demnan]

1. Well what happens if the horse is drunk?

What about - the car is filled with ethanol alcohol?

The variations are endless.

[underpants]

2. Boy I bet W wishes he could ride a horse NOW!

Dam fears.

[Magrittes Pipe]

3. I am moving to Pennsylvania and buying a horse.

That is all.

[alphafemale]

4. How about charging him with animal cruelty and recklessness then?

:mad:

Riding a horse...on a road...at night!?