By Gareth Woo

URCNS – The Virginia Senate passed a series of amendments on Thursday to state DUI laws, exempting drivers operating a motor vehicle on their residential property from being charged.

The bill, SB918, introduced by Sen. Richard H. Stuart, R-Montross, adds two clauses to state law specifying that the current law “shall not apply to any person driving or operating a motor vehicle on his residential property or his adjoining property.” These changes also apply to drivers under the age of 21 who have illegally consumed alcohol.

The bill passed by a 23-16 vote and is now headed to the House of Delegates.

Stuart, whose district includes Northumberland, Richmond and Westmoreland counties, said his goal was not to encourage people to drive while intoxicated but to protect people from being charged with a DUI while on their property if they aren’t driving.

“If you’re not hurting anybody on your own private property, you should be able to have a beer, and turn your car on, and listen to the radio,” he said during a hearing on the bill.

He clarified that intoxicated drivers who harm others while on their private property should still be charged with their offenses, but the amendment is proposed to protect those who aren’t causing physical harm to others. He added that the amendment would not apply to apartment complexes since they are considered public.

“People talk about the legal limit of alcohol in a person before they’re driving; there’s no such thing,” Stuart said.

Sen. Russet W. Perry, D-Loudon, highlighted the potential consequences of passing the bill, referencing other laws related to DUI offenses.

“What his bill does is far, far, far broader than the limited situations that he, I think, is intending to cover,” Perry said.

Perry, who also represents parts of Fauquier County, specifically mentioned a law that deals with DUI maiming while referencing other provisions on involuntary manslaughter and aggravated involuntary manslaughter. She said that passing the bill would prevent drivers from being held accountable under these charges.

“You could run over a 2-year-old toddler in your yard, in your driveway, cause significant bodily harm to them, and not be charged with DUI maiming,” she said.

Perry pointed out that state law addresses the use of narcotics, including cocaine and methamphetamine, in addition to alcohol. She added that while she doesn’t believe these were Stuart’s intentions, the potential consequences of passing the bill outweigh the issues he seeks to address.

“I worry about the unintended consequences from such a broad statute for the two-year-old playing in the driveway and the person who is drunk that we’ve now made it lawful for them to operate a motor vehicle who accidentally reverses over that child,” she said.