Title: City of Bismarck v. Stuart

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

City of Bismarck v. Stuart, 546 N.W.2d 366 (N.D. 1996) [Go to Documents]Filed Apr. 23, 1996Editor's Note: This decision is to be published in the regular manner.IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA City of Bismarck, Plaintiff and Appelleev.Ronald E. Stuart, Defendant and Appellant Criminal No. 950383 Appeal from the District Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Benny A. Graff, Judge.AFFIRMED.Per Curiam.Paul H. Fraase (argued), City Prosecutor, P.O. Box 5503, Bismarck, ND 58506-5503, for plaintiff and appellee.Ronald E. Stuart (argued), pro se, c/o 746 East Main, Valley City, ND 58072-3435, for defendant and appellant.[546 N.W.2d 367] City of Bismarck v. StuartCriminal No. 950383 Per Curiam. Ronald Stuart appeals from his conviction for driving while under suspension. Stuart argues that he has a constitutional right to operate an automobile on public roads without a driver's license. No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the Legislature to decree that, unless exempted by statute, every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license, as NDCC 39-06-01 and following sections mandate. See State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304 (Mont. 1988); City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P.2d 981, 983 (Utah 1987); Boutin v. Conway, 572 A.2d 905, 909 (Vt. 1990). The Legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads. State v. Kouba, 319 N.W.2d 161, 163 (N.D. 1982). We affirm under NDRAppP 35.1(a)(7). State v. Stuart, 544 N.W.2d 158 (N.D. 1996). We order that this decision be published in the regular manner. See NDRAppP 35.1(b). Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.Herbert L. MeschkeDale V. SandstromWilliam A. NeumannMary Muehlen Maring