No. 93-560 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1994 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsWALTER W. SCHAIBLE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Broadwater, 

The Honorable Jeffrey Sherlock, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Walter W. Schaible, Pro Se, Toston, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Brenda 

Nordlund, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

Submitted on ~riefs: June 23, 1994 

JUN 3 0 1994 Decided: June 30, 1994 

Filed: 

CLERK OF SUPRi<Mti;: COURT , $1 

STATE OF Mt.+;d a FiYA 

n !y/f/kse+ 

, ,w&~% 
~ustice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Appellant Walter W. Schaible, appearing pro se, appeals from 

his conviction in the First Judicial District Court, Broadwater 

County, of operating a motor vehicle without liability protection 

in effect in violation of $j 61-6-301, MCA. We affirm. 

Appellant was cited into Justice Court No. 1, Broadwater 

County, for operating a motor vehicle without liability protection 

(in other words, no insurance) . He requested the appointment of 

counsel to represent him and counsel was appointed. He was found 

guilty of the offense and fined a total of $265. 

On appeal to the District Court for a trial de novo, appellant 

again requested appointment of counsel; the court denied the 

request on the basis that no jail time would be imposed in the 

event of a conviction. After a bench trial on October 12, 1993, 

the District Court found appellant guilty of the offense and 

ordered payment of a fine in the same amount imposed by the Justice 

Court. The court held payment of the fine in abeyance pending 

appeal to this Court. This appeal followed. 

Appellant apparently presents a constitutional challenge to 

8 61-6-301, MCA, citing the Ninth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. Other portions of his argument may touch on taxation 

and equal protection of the laws. Appellant cites no authority for 

his arguments, which are premised, in large part, on the concepts 

that constitutional rights are absolute and that the State of 

Montana has no authority to impose a mandatory automobile insurance 
requirement. 

We recognize the sincerity of appellant's beliefs and defend 

his right to hold them. Those beliefs, however, are not supported 

by any controlling legal authorities we have discovered, including 

this Court's cases. 

We previously have rejected arguments similar to those 

advanced by appellant here. In State v. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 

291, 294, 767 P.2d 304, 306-07, we clarified "the basic premise 

that constitutional rights are not always absolute; rather, there 

are just constitutional safeguards which must first be met before 

a government may infringe on an individual's rights." Furthermore, 

"one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to 

reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its 

police power." Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307. 

More specifically, we have applied the following analysis in 

rejecting similar constitutional challenges to Montana's vehicle 

license, driver's license and proof of insurance requirements: 

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. . . . This Court has 

also recognized that such a police power exists even 

though the regulation may frequently be an infringement 

of individual rights. . . . Regulations that are 

formulated within the state's police power will be 

presumed reasonable absent a clear showing to the 

contrary. 

City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986), 224 Mont. 84, 87, 730 P.2d 371, 

373 (citations omitted); State v. Deitchler (1982), 201 Mont. 70, 

72, 651 P.2d 1020, 1021-22 (citations omitted). 

We conclude that appellant has not shown that 61-6-301, MCA, 
is an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power. We hold, 

therefore, that appellant's constitutional rights were not violated 

by requiring him to have liability protection in effect when 

operating a motor vehicle. 

AFFIRMED. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. \ 

We concur: /fly 

Chief Justi