Driving under the influence; driving or operating a motor vehicle, etc., while intoxicated.
Summary
SB 918 amends Virginia’s DUI statutes, specifically the general impaired-driving offense and the under-21 alcohol offense. The bill keeps the existing prohibition on driving or operating a motor vehicle, engine, or train while intoxicated or impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of substances, and it preserves the per se blood concentration thresholds for alcohol and certain drugs. It also continues to treat mopeds as motor vehicles when operated on public highways.
The bill’s notable substantive change is to add an exception stating that these DUI provisions do not apply when a person is driving or operating a motor vehicle on his residential curtilage property or adjoining property. It also applies the same residential-property exception to the under-21 alcohol offense. In addition, the bill retains the current penalties for underage drinking and driving, including the Class 1 misdemeanor classification, license suspension, fine or community service, and eligibility for an alcohol safety program and restricted license, while making clear that the residential-property exception applies there as well.
Impact
SB 918 would amend Code of Virginia §§ 18.2-266 and 18.2-266.1 by narrowing the geographic reach of the DUI and under-21 alcohol-driving offenses to exclude driving on a person’s residential curtilage or adjoining property. The bill does not change the core impairment standards, blood alcohol thresholds, or drug concentration limits, but it would create a statutory defense or exemption for conduct occurring on private residential property as defined by the amendment. It would also leave intact the existing penalty structure for under-21 violations and related license consequences.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable consideration in the Senate committee process, where it was reported with amendments by an 8-7 vote, indicating significant division. It then moved through the Senate efficiently, with unanimous dispensation of constitutional reading and passage on third reading by a 23-16 vote, suggesting broader support in the chamber than in committee. The later subcommittee recommendation to lay the bill on the table indicates that support may have weakened or that the proposal remained controversial after passage in the Senate.
Contention
The main point of contention is the new residential-property exception. Supporters likely view it as a clarification that DUI laws should not reach private, non-public driving on a person’s own property, while opponents may worry it creates a loophole that could limit enforcement in situations involving intoxicated driving on driveways, yards, or adjacent private areas. The committee vote split and the later subcommittee action suggest disagreement over whether the exemption is too broad or unnecessary, especially given the public-safety focus of DUI enforcement. The bill otherwise leaves the underlying DUI standards and penalties largely unchanged, so the dispute centers on the scope of where the law should apply rather than on the impairment thresholds themselves.