Driver’s license cannot be suspended for driving an electric bike under the influence

Beale v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Cal. Ct. App., May 21, 2026, No. H052612) 2026 WL 1430603, at *1

Summary: Beale appealed from a denial of a petition for writ of mandate against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after it suspended his driver’s license for riding an electric bicycle under the influence of alcohol and refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test. Beale argues that an electric bicycle is not a “motor vehicle” under Vehicle Code section 13353 and that there was therefore no basis for suspending his license. The Court agreed with Beale that the statute does not authorize the suspension of an electric bicycle rider’s driver’s license, even if the rider refuses a police officer’s request to take a chemical test.

Facts: On August 16, 2022, at approximately 7:30 p.m., San Jose Police Officer Corini responded to a report of a man on a “motorized bicycle” who had hit a curb and injured his head. Officer Corini located Beale andsmelled alcohol on Beale’s breath and observed that he had bloodshot eyes. Corini askedBeale a series of “intoxication questions.” After initially agreeing to perform field sobriety exercises, Beale then refused to do several of them because of balance issues. Beale also refused to consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test.

Corini determined that Beale was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a), and arrested him. Corini asked if Beale would be willing to “provide a blood or breath sample per DMV’s Implied Consent,” and Beale refused. At 12:20 a.m. on August 17, Officer Corini obtained a blood sample from Beale pursuant to a judicial warrant. The test showed a blood alcohol level of 0.113 percent. Beale received a suspension/revocation order and temporary driver’s license with a notification that he had 10 days to request a hearing to show that the suspension of his license was not justified.

The APS Hearings

On December 9, 2022, the DMV held an initial “administrative per se” (APS) hearing under section 13353, at which the hearing officer and Beale’s attorney discussed whether Beale’s bicycle was an “electric bicycle” or a “motorized bicycle.”

The hearing officer found that “Officer Corini had reasonable cause to believe that [Beale] was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.” The hearing officer further concluded that Beale was “lawfully arrested for a violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152, 23153, or 23140.” The hearing officer made the additional determinations that “[a]n electric bicycle that can move itself is a bicycle, but it is also a motor vehicle,” and that “a bicycle rider has essentially the same rights and responsibilities as the driver of any vehicle,” citing sections 21200, subdivision (a)(1), 21200.5, and 23612. The hearing officer concluded, “[T]he department’s administrative action is deemed warranted.” The hearing officer upheld the suspension of Beale’s driver’s license for the period of June 2, 2023 through June 1, 2024.3

The Trial Court Proceedings

On June 26, 2023, Beale filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He argued that he rode a bicycle, not a motor vehicle, and he was not subject to  a violation of section 23152 or subject to an APS suspension of his driver’s license.

The Refusal Statute and the Resulting Administrative Penalties

Vehicle Code section 13353 et seq. describes the procedure for the DMV to follow in imposing administrative penalties for the refusal, including suspension or revocation of “the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle” for various periods of time. That procedure includes holding an APS hearing at the request of the licensee. (§§ 13353, subd. (e); 13558.) For a first-time violation of sections 23140, 23152, and 23153, a person’s refusal to submit to chemical testing under section 23612 subjects them to a driver’s license suspension “for a period of one year.” (§ 13353, subd. (a)(1).) “An essential condition to the application of Vehicle Code section 13353 is that the suspect be lawfully arrested on probable cause to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.” (Mueller v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 681, 684.)

Whether An Electric Bicycle is a “Motor Vehicle”

Because section 13353, subdivision (a) expressly requires the arresting officer to have “had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153,” Beale maintains—just as he did in the APS hearing and in the trial court—that an electric bicycle is not a “motor vehicle.”

Electric Bicycle” (Vehicle Code Section 312.5)

Section 312.5 defines an “electric bicycle” as “a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power.” (§ 312.5, subd. (a).) It sets forth three classes of electric bicycles, defined as follows:

“(1) A ‘class 1 electric bicycle,’ or ‘low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,’ is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, except as provided in paragraph (4), that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour, and that is not capable of providing assistance to reach speeds greater than 20 miles per hour.

“(2) A ‘class 2 electric bicycle,’ or ‘low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle,’ is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

“(3) A ‘class 3 electric bicycle,’ or ‘speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,’ is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, except as provided in paragraph (4), and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.” (§ 312.5, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

Subdivision (a)(4) provides that “[a] class 1 or class 3 electric bicycle may have start assistance or a walk mode that propels the electric bicycle on motor power alone, up to a maximum speed of 3.7 miles per hour.” (§ 312.5, subd. (a)(4).).

“Motor Vehicle” (Vehicle Code Section 415)

Section 415 defines a “motor vehicle” as “a vehicle that is self-propelled.” (§ 415, subd. (a).) Section 670 defines a “vehicle” as “a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.” (§ 670.) At the hearing on this matter, Schwartz testified that the electric bicycle used by Beale had pedals and a class 2 sticker. As a class 2 electric bicycle, it was capable of being propelled “exclusively” by its motor. On the surface, this appears to qualify Beale’s electric bicycle as a “motor vehicle.”

“Not a Motor Vehicle” (Vehicle Code Section 24016)

Section 24016, which governs the requirements for electric bicycles, states in relevant part: “A person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to the provisions of this code relating to financial responsibility, driver’s licenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle.” (§ 24016, subd. (b),

Bicycle” (Vehicle Code Section 231)

The conclusion that an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle is bolstered by the definition of “bicycle” in the Vehicle Code. Section 231 provides that “[a] bicycle is a device upon which a person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power, except as provided in Section 312.5, through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels.” (§ 231.) As noted above, the exception for section 312.5 refers to electric bicycles. Indeed, section 231 itself states, in its final sentence: “An electric bicycle is a bicycle.” (§ 231.) The classification of an electric bicycle as a “bicycle,” rather than as a “motor vehicle” is clear.

The provisions of the Vehicle Code regarding the suspension of driver’s licenses do not apply to bicyclists such as Beale and that his license therefore should not have been suspended.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.