No. 94-144

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1994

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEAN WADE FOLDA,

Defendant and Appellant

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Yellowstone,

The Honorable Robert W. Holmstrom, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Dean Wade Folda, Pro Se, Billings, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General,

Brenda Nordlund, Assistant Attorney General,

Helena, Montana

Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney,

Carol Donaldson, Deputy County Attorney,

Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 28, 1994

Decided: November 21, 1994

Filed:

Clerk ::.j
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court.

Defendant Dean Wade Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County

Justice Court of four counts of operating a motor vehicle without

liability insurance, in violation of 9: 61-6-304, MCA; four counts

of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of

5 61-3-301, MCA; and one count of not wearing a seatbelt while

operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda

was convicted in Billings City Court of four counts of operating a

motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of

§ 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor

vehicle, in violation of 5 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not

wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of

§ 61-13-103, MCA. On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District

Court for Yellowstone County, the charges originating in Billings

City Court were consolidated and the charges which originated in

Yellowstone County Justice Court were consolidated separately.

Bench trials were held on both appeals: Folda was convicted in both

cases and appeals his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the

District Court.

The issue on appeal is:

Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a

result of his multiple convictions?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Folda was cited in Yellowstone County Justice Court for four

counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in

violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an

2
unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of 9 61-3-301, MCA; and

one count of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor

vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda was cited in

Billings City Court for four counts of operating a motor vehicle

without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four

counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of

5 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not wearing a seatbelt while

operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA.

Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer

a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his

vehicle, wear a seatbelt, or maintain liability insurance. Folda

also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or

federal laws.

After bench trials, Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County

Justice Court and Billings City Court on all counts.

On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, bench

trials were again held pursuant to both appeals; Folda did not

cross-examine any opposing witnesses, nor did he offer any evidence

on his own behalf. Folda was convicted in both cases. He was

fined $125 and sentenced to ten days in jail (which would be

suspended upon the completion of eight hours of community service),

for each count of operating a motor vehicle without liability

insurance. He was fined $100 for each count of operating an

unregistered vehicle. Finally, he was fined $10 for each count of

driving without a seatbelt. The District Court also found that

Folda is unable to pay the fines.

3
DISCUSSION

Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a

result of his multiple convictions?

When we review the constitutionality of a legislative

enactment, we will presume the statute to be constitutional and

will uphold the statute on review except when it is proven to be

unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lilbunz (Mont.

1994), 875 P.2d 1036, 1039, 51 St. Rep. 507, 508 (citing city OfBilrings

v.Laedeke (1991), 247 Mont. 151, 154, 805 P.2d 1348, 1349).

Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer

a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he no longer has to abide by any

state or federal laws, including registering his vehicle or

maintaining liability insurance for his vehicle. Folda also argues

that in order to be prosecuted for a statutory violation, a person

must injure or damage other persons or property and that, in this

case, he has done neither.

In 1837, the United States Supreme Court held that state and

local governments have an inherent power to enact regulations

concerning the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the public.

CharlesRiverBridgev. WarrenBridgeCo. (1837), 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 L. Ed.

773). We relied on this decision in CityofBillingsv.Skurdal (1986), 224

Mont. 84, 87, 730 P.2d 371. We have recognized that regulations

enacted pursuant to the state's police power V'[w]ill be presumed

reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary." Skurdal , 7 3 o

4
P.2d at 373 (quoting Bettey v. CilyofSidmy (1927), 79 Mont. 314, 319,

257 P. 1007, 1009).

Operation of a motor vehicle and abiding by the regulations

and statutory licensing procedures that follow is a privilege. state

y. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 291, 295, 767 P.2d 304, 307. An

individual's ability or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on

public roads is "[allways subject to reasonable regulation by the

state in the valid exercise of its police power." Skurdal, 767 P.2d

at 307 (quoting Gordonv. State (Idaho 1985), 697 P.2d 1192, 1193).

Reasonable regulations include Montana's requirements for vehicle

registration, insurance, and mandatory seatbelt usage. "[This]

. . . privilege . . . [of operating a motor vehicle on public

roads] may be revoked for noncompliance [with statutory

regulations] . . . .'I Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307.

The statutes that Folda violated "[aIre regulatory in nature

and no person in the state is exempt from [regulatory statutes]

. . . ." Cityofwhitefishv.Hansen (1989), 237 Mont. 105, 107, 771 P.2d

976, 977. Persons are not exempt from regulatory statutes, even if

they claim they are "free" men who are not Fourteenth Amendment

citizens and do not have to obey state or federal law.

We conclude that Folda has not shown that §§ 61-6-304,

61-3-301, and 61-13-103, MCA, are unreasonable or unconstitutional.

We conclude that neither Folda's statutory nor constitutional

rights were violated by requiring him to register his vehicle,

carry liability insurance, or wear a seatbelt. We conclude that

5
Folda's argument is without merit and affords no basis for relief.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

We concur:

Justi- .

6