When interpreting statutes, what rule does a defendant likely first apply to challenge a DUI charge for his motorized wheelchair?

The plain meaning rule is a fundamental principle in statutory interpretation that dictates that the words of a statute should be interpreted in their ordinary, everyday meaning. When a defendant is challenging a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) charge related to a motorized wheelchair, they would likely first apply the plain meaning rule to analyze how the statute defines the terms related to the offense.

This rule suggests that if the language of the statute clearly specifies what constitutes a vehicle, the defendant can argue that their motorized wheelchair does not fall within that definition as understood in common terms. For instance, many DUI statutes refer to "motor vehicles" which usually implies traditional vehicles like cars or trucks. The application of the plain meaning rule allows the court to focus on the exact language of the law without delving into legislative intent or external implications.

In this scenario, using the plain meaning rule serves as the most straightforward initial approach and sets the stage for a legal argument that might suggest a different interpretation of what is considered a vehicle under the DUI statute. This approach would align with a clear and logical interpretation of the law, providing a solid foundation for the defendant's challenge.