§291-3.3  Storage of opened container containing intoxicating liquor or consumption at scenic lookout.  (a)  No person shall keep in a motor vehicle, or on a moped when such vehicle or moped is upon any public street, road, or highway or at any scenic lookout, any bottle, can, or other receptacle containing any intoxicating liquor which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed or fully removed, unless such container is kept in the trunk of the vehicle, or kept in some other area of the vehicle not normally occupied by the driver or passengers, if the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk.  A utility or glove compartment shall be deemed to be within the area occupied by the driver and passengers.

     (b)  No person shall consume any intoxicating liquor at any scenic lookout.

     (c)  Subsection (a) shall not apply to a recreational or other vehicle not having a separate trunk compartment.

     (d)  Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a violation. [L 1981, c 152, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 171, §5; am L 1987, c 33, §9; am L 2000, c 62, §3]

Case Notes

  Based on the clear language of subsection (b) and §287-3(a), and because subsection (b) does not describe a "moving violation" which arises from the "operation of a motor vehicle", the district court disregarded the statutory requirements and abused its discretion in determining that a violation of subsection (b) was properly included as part of defendant's traffic abstract.  123 H. 293 (App.), 233 P.3d 713 (2010).

  Where there was nothing in the record to base a conclusion that defendant intentionally relinquished any right to challenge an improper listing of a subsection (b) violation on defendant's abstract, and there was nothing to suggest the traffic abstract was contemplated or should have been contemplated before defendant admitted to the violation, or that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that defendant's admission could lead to the violation appearing on defendant's abstract, the district court abused its discretion in concluding that defendant waived defendant's defenses or rights related to the abstract.  123 H. 293 (App.), 233 P.3d 713 (2010).