Case Title: City of Albuquerque v. Jones

Citation: 535 P.2d 1337, 87 N.M. 486

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1975-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
535 P.2d 1337 (1975) 87 N.M. 486 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy T. JONES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10033. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 14, 1975. Ronald R. Walker, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant. Emmett C. Hart, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee. McMANUS, Chief Justice. Jones was charged in the Albuquerque Municipal Court with violation of § 71.11 *1338 of the Traffic Code of the City of Albuquerque, which requires the operator of a motorcycle to wear an approved safety helmet. The municipal court held that ordinance unconstitutional; the district court affirmed, and the City appeals. Section 71.11, supra, reads as follows: The district court found that Jones was 32 years of age, and that on December 28, 1973, he was operating a motorcycle within the city limits of Albuquerque, and while doing so was not wearing an approved motorcycle helmet. Similar ordinances have been construed by the Supreme Court of the United States and by appellate courts in over half of the states. In Simon v. Sargent, 409 U.S. 1020, 34 L. Ed. 2d 312, 93 S. Ct. 463 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld by memorandum a three-judge district court decision that a Massachusetts statute requiring a motorcyclist to wear a safety helmet did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the subject matter of the enactment did not lie beyond the reach of the state's police power, nor the equal protection clause as a rational basis for the law was easily discernible. We interpret this as a clear direction by the Supreme Court that ordinances such as the one here involved are not violative of the federal Constitution. In State v. Acker, 26 Utah 2d 104, 485 P.2d 1038 (1971), the court was considering a statute very similar to the ordinance in question in this case. The court there said: There are other courts which have held motorcycle helmet statutes unconstitutional, namely Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, but the overwhelming weight of authority holds otherwise. See, Love v. Bell, 465 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1970); State v. Albertson, 93 Idaho 640, 470 P.2d 300 (1970); State v. Eitel, 227 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1969); Everhardt *1339 v. City of New Orleans, 253 La. 285, 217 So. 2d 400 (1969); Bisenius v. Karns, 42 Wis.2d 42, 165 N.W.2d 377 (1969); Commonwealth v. Howie, 354 Mass. 769, 238 N.E.2d 373 (1968); State v. Anderson, 3 N.C. App. 124, 164 S.E.2d 48 (1968); State v. Lombardi, 104 R.I. 28, 241 A.2d 625 (1968). This court agrees with those jurisdictions which have considered such helmet legislation to be constitutional. We believe that § 71.11, supra, was and is an appropriate exercise of the City's police powers. There is a presumption that all legislative acts are legal and valid, and their provisions presumed constitutional. Saiz v. City of Albuquerque, 82 N.M. 746, 487 P.2d 174 (Ct.App. 1971). This presumption extends to municipal ordinances, as we stated in City of Lovington v. Hall, 68 N.M. 143, 145, 359 P.2d 769, 770 (1961): Appellee here has not met this burden. Appellant City further declares that the delegation to the commissioner of motor vehicles of the power to determine what type of helmet should be worn did not deprive the appellee of due process. We agree. Delegated standards need not be specific and may be broad as long as they are capable of reasonable understanding and are sufficient to limit and define discretionary power. City of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 73 N.M. 410, 389 P.2d 13 (1964). The fact that the commissioner of motor vehicles of the State of New Mexico adopted the standards determined by the testing of a third person does not make such testing unreasonable. In addition, the testing methods were not challenged by any parties to this action. It is the opinion of this court that the district court erred in holding § 71.11, supra, unconstitutional. Consequently, the cause should be reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of the City of Albuquerque. It is so ordered. MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur.