Given the death and destruction that can result from drunk driving, it's not surprising that state laws addressing the crimes are harsh. It's an offense involved in 30% of traffic fatalities, and despite strict statutes and campaigns designed to stop drivers from operating under the influence, an average of 34 people die in drug- and alcohol-related crashes every day in the United States.
Like other states, the Massachusetts operating under the influence (OUI) laws are severe to both encourage drivers to refrain from getting behind the wheel when impaired and to punish them if they do. As technology changes and shapes the world we live in, the definition of what it means to "operate" a vehicle perhaps needs a clearer legal definition.
That's the question the Massachusetts Supreme Court pondered as it heard arguments on a OUI case on April 11, 2025. A driver sentenced for an OUI charge petitioned the court after losing his appeal in 2024. Michael Wurtzburger claims he wasn't operating anything and was only in the driver's seat because he and his friend were using the van as lodging while on vacation. The court's decision may set an important precedent.
My House Has Four Wheels
The first law criminalizing the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated was passed by New Jersey in 1906. In 2000, federal law required all states to set a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% and establish a minimum drinking age of 21.
Even a first OUI offense in Massachusetts carries heavy penalties that include loss of license for up to a year, a fine of up to $5,000, and jail time for up to two and a half years. Penalties for subsequent OUI violations quickly ramp up in severity.
Massachusetts also embraces "per se OUI laws." This means that a driver that has a BAC over the legal limit can be charged with an OUI offense even law enforcement doesn't catch them in the act. For example, a driver who's been drinking might realize they're impaired and pull over to "sleep it off." If law enforcement shows up and administers a test that shows impairment or BAC above the legal amount, the driver is considered to have committed an OUI crime.
Such is what happened to Wurtzburger, who was arrested for OUI in a parking lot by a Cape Cod beach. Found in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition and surrounded by open vodka bottles, Wurtzburger admitted to drinking four beers but claimed he hadn't been driving and that he and his friend were living in the van while on vacation.
His argument, which was not helped by his previous OUI convictions, ended up in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court after his appeal was denied.
The Times, They Are A Changin'
Under OUI laws, being behind the wheel of a vehicle with a BAC over the legal limit is a crime. This is regardless of whether the driver was observed operating the auto. Justice Scott Kafker, after having an assistant district attorney confirm that a person using the car for a home who had the engine running to keep warm and had a BAC over the limit was guilty of an OUI, questioned whether the law needed to update the definition of "operate" to reflect how times have changed.
The Justices also discussed the emergence of recreational vehicles, which are essentially small homes on wheels, along with driverless cars and remote starters. The defense argued that the laws were in place to prevent an OUI from ever happening, and cases like Wurtzburger's were better left to a judge or jury as opposed to changing the law through legislation.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling on Wurtzburger's case may be so narrowly focused that it doesn't set much of a precedent. On the other hand, it could walk the tightrope between addressing the need to reexamine OUI laws given advances in technology and trying to lower an alcohol-related automotive fatality rate that stays disturbingly high.
Related Resources
- DUI Basics (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Comparing State DUI Laws (FindLaw's DUI Laws and Resources)
- BAC Test FAQ (FindLaw's DUI Arrests)
