Title: Gableman v. Hjelle

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

224 N.W.2d 379 (1974) Jack R. GABLEMAN, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Walter R. HJELLE, State Highway Commissioner of the State of North Dakota, Defendant/Appellant. Civ. No. 9051. Supreme Court of North Dakota. December 5, 1974. *381 Norbert H. Lange, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., State Highway Dept., Bismarck, for appellant. Murray, Mack, Moosbrugger & Leonard, Grand Forks, for appellee. PAULSON, Judge. This is an appeal by Walter R. Hjelle, State Highway Commissioner of the State of North Dakota [hereinafter the "State"], from an order of the District Court of Grand Forks County dated May 24, 1974, which order required the State to issue a temporary restricted driver's license to Jack R. Gableman [hereinafter "Mr. Gableman"], pursuant to § 39-06.1-11 of the North Dakota Century Code. Mr. Gableman was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in the City of Grand Forks on March 30, 1974. He was requested to submit to a chemical test for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of his blood. Mr. Gableman refused to take such chemical test. The arresting officer, pursuant to the provisions of § 39-20-04, N.D.C.C. submitted his sworn report, required by such section, to the State Highway Commissioner. The Safety Responsibility Division of the State Highway Department notified Mr. Gableman on April 18, 1974, that his driver's license was revoked for a period of six months because of his refusal to consent to submit to chemical testing prescribed by § 39-20-04, N.D. C.C. Mr. Gableman, through his attorney, filed a request for a hearing, combined with an application for the issuance of a temporary restricted driver's license, pursuant to § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C. The Safety Responsibility Division of the State Highway Department approved Mr. Gableman's request for a hearing, but denied his application for the issuance of such restricted license, on the ground that such statute [§ 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C.] did not make provision for the issuance of a restricted license when a driver's license is revoked. On May 8, 1974, a summons and complaint were issued by Mr. Gableman's attorney, wherein he alleged that § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C., contravenes the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution. Mr. Gableman's attorney also filed an affidavit in support of an order to show cause, requesting an order permanently enjoining the State from taking Mr. Gableman's operator's license on the ground of his refusal to submit to chemical testing. A hearing was held before the District Court of Grand Forks County on May 20, 1974. The district court, on May 24, 1974, issued its order in which it stated: The order further stated: Mr. Gableman, on May 28, 1974, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and his license was suspended for twenty-eight days, pursuant to § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C. Subsequent to his plea of guilty, Mr. Gableman withdrew his request for a hearing on the revocation of his driver's license. The sole question before this court is whether or not § 39-06.1-11, of the North Dakota Century Code, contravenes the Equal Protection Clauses of either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of North Dakota. However, before considering the specific issue raised by the State, the pertinent statutes which are applicable in deciding this case are set forth, as follows: Section 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C., permits the issuance of a temporary restricted operator's license to a person convicted of such offenses, among others, as driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and leaving the scene of an accident. Mr. Gableman contends that to permit any such person to acquire a restricted operator's license, while denying the same opportunity to a driver who has refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication, is an unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary classification. He further contends that the application of § 39-06.1-11 in such a manner denies a privilege to one class of persons while granting the privilege to another class of persons who are in a similar classification. The trial court agreed with Mr. Gableman's contention, holding that such classification was in contravention of the Equal Protection Clauses of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Article I, §§ 11 and 20 of the North Dakota Constitution. We do not agree with the decision of the district court. *383 In Souris River Telephone Mutual Aid Corp. v. State, 162 N.W.2d 685, 688 (N.D.1968), this court stated: This court, in State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 749, 752 (N.D.1966), in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the syllabus, held, with reference to classification in the Fourteenth Amendment, as follows: Likewise, in In re Estate of Jensen, 162 N.W.2d 861 (N.D.1968), in paragraph 7 of the syllabus, this court held: The language of § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C., specifically refers to persons whose operator's licenses have been suspended pursuant to § 39-06.1-10, N.D.C.C. The class created by this statute includes only such persons. Although Mr. Gableman urges us to believe that the omission from this class of those persons whose operator's licenses have been revoked pursuant to § 39-20-04, N.D.C.C., was an oversight on the part of the Legislature, this is not persuasive. See, In re Estate of Jensen, supra, 162 N.W.2d at 869. Sections 39-06.1-11 and 39-20-04, N.D.C.C., both deal with a particular classification which is separate and distinct from each other. In Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 274 Cal. App. 2d 793, 79 Cal. Rptr. 433, 435 (1969), the California Appeal Court stated: Clearly, we are dealing with two separate classificationswe cannot assume that the omission from § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C., of a provision for the issuance of a temporary restricted operator's license to a person whose operator's license has been revoked was a legislative oversight. The language of § 39-06.1-11 is explicit and requires no interpretation. In Signal Oil and Gas Company v. Williams County, 206 N.W.2d 75, 83 (N.D.1973), this court stated: In Pepin v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 275 Cal. App. 2d 9, 79 Cal. Rptr. 657, 659 (1969), the California Appeal Court stated: The California Appeal Court, in Walker v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 79 Cal. Rptr. at 435, stated: We adopt the rationale of the court in Pepin and in Walker, supra. We hold that § 39-06.1-11, N.D.C.C., does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of either § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or of Article I, §§ 11 and 20 of the North Dakota Constitution. Pursuant to § 39-20-04, N.D.C.C., all persons who refuse to submit to a chemical test are treated in the same manner, and revocation of such persons' operator's licenses is mandatory, not discretionary, and is not unreasonable, capricious, or arbitrary. Heer v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 252 Or. 455, 450 P.2d 533, 537 (1969). The order of the trial court is reversed. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and JOHNSON, VOGEL and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.