No. 87-496 

88-478 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

THE CITY OF WHITEFISH, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsGARRICK L. HANSEN, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEALS FROM: The District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Flathead, 

The Honorable Michael Keedv, Judqe presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Garrick L. Hansen, pro se, Whitefish, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Robert F.W. Smith, Asst. Attv. General, Helena 

Thomas S. Muri, City Attorney, Whitefish, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 3, 1989 

Decided: April 19, 1989 

61 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy del.ivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The appellant, Garrick L. Hansen appeals from a judgment 

of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, f indi ng 

him guilty of failing to have a valid driver's license, 

failing to carry motor vehicles insurance coverage, and 

failing to renew his motor vehicle registration. We affirm. 

The issues raised on appeal by Hansen are: 

1) whether the District Court violated appellant's 

constitutional riqhts; and 

2) whether the "issuing" court had jurisdiction to try 

appellant for the violations aforementioned. 

The case arises out of the following circumstances. On 

Thanksgiving Day 1988, appellant drove to a grocery store in 

Whitefish, Montana. Whitefish police officers approached 

Hansen in the parking lot of the shopping mall where the 

grocery store was located. The officers informed Hansen that 

his tail lights did not illuminate and asked for his 

driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of 

insurance. Appellant told the officers that he was not a 

person required to carry such documents. The officers placed 

appellant under arrest. 

We accepted this appeal based on public policy that pro 

se appellants should not be barred from access to the court. 

Courts of appeal should make all allowances possible in favor 

of persons appealing in propria persona. Wimberly v. Rogers 

(9th Cir. Mont. 1977), 557 F.2d 671. 

Hansen's first contention is that the District Court 

violated his constitutional rights. The arguments he offers 

to buttress his vague claims are indistinct, confused and 

incomprensible. They show a disrespect for this Court whose 
function it is to decide serious questions of constitutional 

deprivation. We cannot dignify the contentions with anything 

beyond a curt reply. 

This Court has previously addressed the issue concerning 

alleged violation of constitutional rights by requiring 

vehicle operators to carry a motor vehicle license, a 

driver's license and proof of vehicle insurance. In City of 

Billings v. Skurdal (Mont. 1986), 730 P.2d 371, 43 St-Rep. 

2036, we listed considerable authority on the issue: 

The United States Supreme Court in 1837 recognized 

that state and local governments possess an 

inherent power to enact reasonable legislation for 

the health, safety, welfare, or morals of the 

public. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Co. 

(1837), 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 42r~.~d. 773. his 

Court has also recognized that such a police power 

exists even though the regulation may frequently be 

an infringement of individual rights. State v. 

Rathbone (1940), 110 Mont.. 225, 241, 100 P.2d 86, 

92. See also, State v. Penny (1910), 42 Mont. 118, 

111 P. 727. ~e~ulatizs that are formulated within 

the state's police power will be presumed 

reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary. 

Bettey v. City of Sidney (1927), 79 Mont. 314, 319, 

257 P. 1007, 1009 . . . . 

We have previously recognized the power of the 

State to regulate licensing of drivers in the 

interests of public safety. Sedlacek v. Ahrens 

(1974), 165 Mont. 479, 483, 530 P.2d 424, 426. 

State v. Deitchler (1982), 201 Mont. 70, 72-73, 651 

P. 2d 10207021-22. 

Art. VII, 1 of the Constitution of the State of Montana 

vests the judicial power of the state in "one supreme court, 

district courts, justice courts, and such other courts as may 

be provided by law." City Courts are provided for by SS 

3-11-102, -303, MCA. Penalties are established for the 

misdemeanors committed by Hansen under § 61-3-301(4), 

61--3-601, 61-5-30? and 61.-6-304, MCA. City Courts have 
initial jurisdiction over these matters, §S 3-11-102(1), 

3-10-303(1), MCA; and appeals of these matters are heard de 

novo in district court. Sections 3-5-303 and 46-17-311, MCA. 

Each of the proced.ural steps mandated in those stat.utes was 

adhered to in Hansen's arrest and conviction. The statutes 

are regulatory in nature and no person in the state is exempt 

from them. 

It is our conclusion that the issues appealed by 

appellant are frivolous, unreasonable and groundless and 

afford no basis for appellate relief from the District 

Court 9 decree. The appeal here is dismissed and the 

District Court affj.rmed.