Well, the examples of people not listening to me keep piling up. Last time it was yet more suspects pointlessly leaping into yet more bodies of water. See “Yet More Aquatic Escape Attempts” (Sept. 5, 2025). And now we have yet another person driving a Barbie Jeep while under the influence.

As you may recall, we discussed this particular moving violation … wait. Exactly ten years ago today? Yes, ten years ago to the day. See “Yes, You Could Get a DWI on a Barbie Jeep” (Sept. 8, 2015). Is that both completely coincidental and due largely to the entirely random date I chose to write about the first incident? Yes! Am I going to go back and remove the italics for that reason? No I am not!

In that case, a Texas college student whose license had been suspended decided it would be fun to buy a pink electric Barbie Jeep and drive that around campus instead. And that is fun, especially if you’re intoxicated! And it’s not like you’re breaking the law by driving a Barbie Jeep while intoxicated! Except that you are.

I tried to find out what ultimately happened in that case, but had no luck. Did I find any reported cases on Westlaw using the phrase “Barbie Jeep”? Yes, four. Were three of them criminal cases? Yes. Seems like a lot, frankly. But none involved the 2015 incident, which I’m guessing was quietly pleaded out.

Anyway, in the 2025 incident, a man in Prince George, British Columbia, was arrested after being seen driving down a “main thoroughfare” in a similar Barbie Jeep. The CBC’s article on this is very good, with images, several witness statements, and even a link to Mattel’s product page for the Power Wheels® Barbie® Jeep® Wrangler involved in the alleged crime. I appreciate this kind of detail.

According to the report, Kasper Lincoln said he had been “getting ready to go get a slurpee with a friend” but then “‘got lazy’ and decided to borrow his roommate’s child’s tiny car to get around.” I, too, sometimes lack the energy to get up and walk to my local slurpee dealer, but so far I haven’t needed one so badly that I took a child’s tiny car to get there. Maybe that day will come, though. Probably Thursday.

The report doesn’t say how far Lincoln got, but he was on the road long enough for drivers to make “multiple calls” to police. At least some callers reported that the Barbie Jeep was “in the middle of the road,” something Lincoln denied. One of the pictures shows him in a lane that’s closed for construction, but none show him actually in traffic. If he did veer out there, the calls are understandable, as the Barbie Jeep is tiny and has a top speed of just five mph. Still, witnesses who spoke to the CBC thought police were overreacting.

“You’re really arresting him for driving a kid’s jeep?” asked one, who said Lincoln had been driving “close to the curb” and going “maybe three miles an hour.” A driver in the lane next to him saw the police and tried to warn Lincoln: “[T]his undercover [police car] is behind me … so I roll my window down and say ‘Don’t let ’em catch you ridin’ dirty!’” As the CBC notes, this was a reference to a song lyric about “driving while taking part in an illegal activity.” I’m not sure whether this qualifies as ridin’ dirty per se, but police and breathalyzer tests did find that Lincoln was “inebriated.”

He was also vaping, which is legal but got him in some trouble anyway, indirectly. One image shows him being cuffed while bent over the hood of the police car, but apparently that’s not how things went down at first. According to the caption, “Kasper says he was cuffed after he took a hit of his vape, which was on top of the police vehicle, while he was being ordered to keep his hands in place.” Never make a sudden grab for your belongings in this situation, even in Canada. (In the U.S., of course, he’d have just been taken out by a Tomahawk missile, but they still do things the old-fashioned way up north.)

In any event, Lincoln was arrested and charged with DUI. In a Barbie Jeep with a top speed of 5 mph? Is that a crime? Well, as always, that depends on local law and, usually, how it defines “vehicle” or “motor vehicle.” The CBC, again doing a terrific job, reached out to Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee for an opinion, and her opinion was yes: “Toy cars constitute motor vehicles if they are powered by some sort of an engine.” That appears to be correct.

I’m pleased to say that I can draw upon my own past research here to some extent. See “Canadian Legal Alert: Canoeing Under the Influence Is Now Illegal” (July 7, 2023) (addressing the Canadian law making it illegal to operate any “conveyance” while impaired); “Canada May Legalize Drunken Canoeing” (Sept. 29, 2017) (with update noting this bill did not pass). Motor vehicles are conveyances too, of course, and the Canadian law defines “motor vehicle” as any vehicle “not run on rails, that is designed to be self-propelled or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires.” You don’t have to read the owners’ manual to know the Wrangler (1) is not on rails and (2) is self-propelled, so that pretty much answers the question: it is a “conveyance” that one cannot operate while impaired.

Unfortunately for Lincoln, that means it is also a conveyance that one cannot operate on a roadway without a license and insurance. Lincoln’s license had been suspended, and not surprisingly, the Barbie Jeep was not insured. It is “well-established” in Canada, Lee said, that these laws also apply to toy motor vehicles. It isn’t clear whether Lincoln has been charged with these violations, though.

Lincoln said he did plan to dispute the ticket (“I was using hand signals and everything,” he said), but wasn’t mad at the police for arresting him. And as one would expect in Canada, they all seem to have gotten along great. “He was really nice,” Lincoln said of his arresting officer. “He was filling out all of this paperwork, saying ‘This is my first time!’” All very refreshing.