No. 87-496 88-478
IN THE 

### SUPREMECOURTOF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE CITY OF WHITEFISH, Plaintiffand 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 HonorableMichael Keedv,Judqepresiding.
COUNSELOF RECORD:
ForAppellant: 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, 

### CityAttorney, Whitefish,Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 3, 1989 Decided: April 19, 1989
61Mr. 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, finding 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 constitutionalriqhts;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, appellantdrove to a grocery store in Whitefish, Montana. Whitefish police officers approached Hansen in the parking lot of the shopping mall where the grocery storewas 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 suchdocuments. The officersplaced 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 shouldmake all allowancespossible 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 argumentshe offers to buttress his vague claims are indistinct, confused and incomprensible. They show a disrespect 

### for this Court whosefunction 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 ofvehicle 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 regulationmay frequentlybe an infringement of individual rights. State v. Rathbone (1940), 110 Mont.. 225, 241, 100 P.2d 86, 92. See also, Statev. Penny (1910),42Mont. 118, 111 P. 727. ~e~ulatizs that are formulatedwithin the state's police power will be presumed reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary. Bettey v. City of Sidney (1927),79Mont. 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. Statev. 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 judicialpower of the state in "one supreme court, district courts, justice courts,and such other courts asmay 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 haveinitial 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.uralsteps mandated in those stat.uteswas 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.