Title: Benning v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

BENNING_V_STATE.93-043; 161 Vt. 472; 641 A.2d 757

[Opinion Filed 28-Jan-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 17-Mar-1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 93-043


 Joseph Benning, et al.                       Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Caledonia Superior Court

 State of Vermont                             October Term, 1993


 Stephen B. Martin, J.

 Joseph C. Benning, Lyndonville, for plaintiffs-appellants

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Scott A. Whitted, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs Joseph C. Benning, the Northeast Kingdom
 Chapter of Freedom of the Road, and the parent organization Freedom of the
 Road appeal from a decision of the Caledonia Superior Court dismissing
 plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief from 23 V.S.A. {
 1256, the motorcycle headgear statute, and a subsequent denial of their
 motion for reconsideration.  We affirm.
      In 1989, plaintiff Benning was cited for a violation of { 1256 for
 operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear.  However, the
 Caledonia County State's Attorney dismissed the citation because he found
 the statute vague and was unable to establish the elements necessary to

 

 prosecute the crime.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit,(FN1) seeking to have 
 { 1256 declared unconstitutional and to have the State enjoined from further
 enforcement of the statute.  Plaintiffs make three arguments based solely on
 the state constitution:  (1) the statute is repugnant to the tenor, spirit
 and intent of the Vermont Constitution; (2) the statute is void for
 vagueness; and (3) the statute denies plaintiffs equal protection of the
 laws.  We address each contention in turn.
                                     I.
      Section 1256 was enacted in 1968, and states in full:
           No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a
           highway unless he wears upon his head protective
           headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by
           the commissioner.  The headgear shall be equipped with
           either a neck or chin strap.

 The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is charged with administration of this
 statute, 23 V.S.A. { 1, including the duty to promulgate regulations
 thereunder.  Id. { 1001(a).
      Within a year of its enactment, the statute came under challenge in
 State v. Solomon, 128 Vt. 197,