## Facts

- Kevin Kieper operated an off-road racing motorcycle (a dirt bike) on a public highway in Washington County, Wisconsin.
- At the time, Kieper’s driver’s license had been revoked.
- Washington County cited Kieper for operating a motor vehicle after revocation under Wisconsin’s operating-after-revocation statute.
- Kieper moved to dismiss, arguing the dirt bike was not a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the operating-after-revocation statute.
- Kieper’s argument relied on the dirt bike’s usual regulatory treatment: it did not require a driver’s license to operate and could not be registered for highway use.
- The trial court agreed with Kieper’s interpretation and dismissed the operating-after-revocation charge.
- Washington County appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether an off-road dirt bike operated on a public highway is a “motor vehicle” for purposes of Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle after revocation.
2. Whether the operating-after-revocation statute applies only when the vehicle involved is one that requires a driver’s license to operate and is subject to registration.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the charge.
- The court held that the dirt bike qualified as a “motor vehicle” under the operating-after-revocation statute when operated on a highway.
- The court rejected Kieper’s position that the statute is limited to vehicles that require licensing and registration; those regulatory categories did not control the meaning of “motor vehicle” for this offense.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed independently on appeal.
- For operating-after-revocation offenses, “motor vehicle” is construed according to the statutory definition and the statute’s purpose, not solely by reference to whether the vehicle is registrable or ordinarily requires a driver’s license.
- A self-propelled vehicle operated on a public highway may fall within “motor vehicle” even if it is designed primarily for off-road use.
- Courts interpret traffic-safety statutes in a manner that gives effect to legislative intent to keep revoked drivers from operating motorized vehicles on public roads.

## Conclusion

Washington County v. Kieper held that a revoked driver’s operation of an off-road dirt bike on a public highway can support an operating-after-revocation charge because the dirt bike is a “motor vehicle” for that statute, and the statute is not limited to vehicles that require licensing or registration.


Washington County v. Kieper, 438 N.W.2d 597, 148 Wis. 2d 953 (1989)