WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) — Kansas’ highest court has ruled in favor of a woman who tried to get her driver’s license back. However, at least one Kansas Supreme Court justice believes the decision is absurd.

At the heart of the issue, the justices were asked to decide if the woman, who was legally drunk, was driving a car while it was stuck in the mud.

The case dates back to Jan. 24, 2021, in Sumner County. Court documents say the woman’s husband drove a vehicle into a house and then got the vehicle stuck in mud. The woman was a passenger but got into the driver’s seat as her husband tried to push the car from the rear.

When law enforcement officers arrived, they saw the woman with her hands on the steering wheel and pressing the gas pedal. The tires were spinning, but the vehicle was not moving because of the mud.

Both the husband and wife were arrested for DUI. Court documents show the woman submitted to a breath alcohol test, and the result was .156, almost twice the legal limit.

She was notified that the Kansas Department of Revenue would suspend her driving privileges because she was operating a vehicle while under the influence.

The woman argued that since the vehicle was not moving, she was not operating or driving it. She took her reasoning to the Department of Revenue, Sumner County District Court, and the Kansas Court of Appeals and lost.

But on Friday, a majority of the Kansas Supreme Court agreed with her, saying the evidence presented only established that she “attempted” to operate the vehicle.

The justices said the word “operate,” used in Kansas statute, is synonymous with “drive,” which requires the vehicle to move. Since there is no evidence that the vehicle moved, they said the woman did not operate it.

Justices Caleb Stegall and Melissa Taylor Standridge disagreed with the majority. Stegall called the decision absurd.

“I fail to understand how causing the actual movement of the mechanical mechanisms of the drivetrain of the car, done with an intent to steer the vehicle out of a ditch, does not satisfy the Legislature’s intent behind the word ‘operate,'” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Today’s outcome falls far outside the plain meaning of the statute and produces what I believe to be an absurd result.”

Justice Evelyn Z. Wilson defended the opinion of the majority.

“The Legislature has not made our task so simple. Instead of a simple binary choice, the Legislature has also included the term ‘attempted’ operation of a vehicle for our consideration,” she wrote. “While ‘operation’ may be plain language on its own, the ‘attempted’ modifier requires additional consideration that cannot be answered by a broad appeal to ‘common sense.'”