IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 11, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN S. CRANDALL 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County

No. 15074 Robert L. Holloway, Jr., Judge

No. M2012-00299-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 26, 2012

The pro se defendant, John S. Crandall, was convicted in a Wayne County bench trial of

failure to have a valid driver’s license, failure to wear a safety belt, failure to stop at a stop

sign, violation of the financial responsibility law, and driving with an expired registration.

On appeal, he challengesthe constitutionality of the Tennessee statutes requiring him to wear

a safety belt, purchase automobile insurance, and obtain a Tennessee driver’s license when

his driver’s license from his former state of residence was not expired. Following our

review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and JAMES

CURWOOD WITT, JR., JJ., joined.

John S. Crandall, Hohenwald, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; T.

Michel Bottoms, District Attorney General; and J. Douglas Dicus, Assistant District Attorney

General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

On August 8, 2011, the Wayne County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for the

following offenses, all of which occurred on May 17, 2011, on Highway 99 in Wayne

County: (1) failure to have a valid driver’s license in his possession by not having the correct

home address on his license as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-304;

(2) driving a motor vehicle on the public highways while not being restrained by a safety belt
as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-9-603; (3) failure to obey a traffic

control device by not stopping at a stop sign, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated

section 55-8-109; (4) driving a motor vehicle on the public highways with an expired

registration, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-104; and (5) failure to

provide evidence of financial responsibility, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated

section 55-12-139.

The defendant was convicted of the indicted offenses in an October 25, 2011 bench

trial, with a $20 fine assessed for the driver’s license violation, a $10 fine for the seatbelt law

violation, a $15 fine for the stop sign violation, a $10 fine for the financial responsibility law

violation, and a $0 fine for the registration law violation, with the special condition noted:

“Upon presentation of valid registration.” The trial court also noted in the special conditions

sections of the defendant’s judgments for his violations of the driver’s license and insurance

laws that the fines and costs for those offenses would be waived if the defendant presented

proof of a valid license and valid insurance within thirty days.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the statutes that require

him to update his driver’s license, to wear a safety belt, and to purchase and carry proof of

liability insurance. Specifically, he argues that the seatbelt law violates, among other things,

his right to liberty, property, and “to ha[zard] the safety of his own person on his own

business as he sees fit.” He argues that the insurance law violates his rights to life, liberty,

property, and “hazard” because it forces him to purchase a product and to enter into an

unwanted contract. He argues that the driver’s license law violates his right to property

because it forces him to purchase a redundant driver’s license for the sole purpose of

generating revenue for the State of Tennessee. The defendant asserts that his alleged crimes

are essentially victimless and that his individual rights trump any possible damage to the

State caused by his failure to comply with the regulations.

The defendant further assertsthat the Wayne County court clerks, trial judges, and law

enforcement officials treated him rudely and obstructed his right to justice. He, therefore,

requests that this court award him $1,000,000 in damages from the State “as compensation

for pain and suffering, harassment, and Injustice done upon him and his Rights.” The State

responds by arguing that the challenged statutes are valid and reasonable exercises of the

State’s power to enact regulations that further the interests of public safety and welfare. We

agree with the State.

It is well-established that our Legislature possesses the power to enact reasonable

legislation for the health, safety, welfare, morals, or convenience of the public, which

-2-
includes “prescrib[ing] conditions under which the ‘privilege’ of operating automobiles on

public highways may be exercised.” State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tenn. Crim.

App. 1997) (citations omitted). In Booher, this court concluded that the driver’s licensing

and vehicle registration portions of the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Title and Registration Law

are reasonable regulations that further the interests of public safety and welfare:

Requiring persons to obtain a driver’s license and to register their automobiles

with the State provides a means of identifying the owner of the automobile if

negligently operated to the damage of other persons. Moreover, because it is

a means of guaranteeing a minimal level of driver competence, licensing

improves safety on our highways and, thus, protects and enhances the well

being of the residents and visitors of our state. Thus, our state legislature may

properly within the scope of its police power enact reasonable regulations

requiring licensing and registration of motor vehicles as it furthers the interests

of public safety and welfare.

Id. (citations omitted).

Regulations requiring a driver to obtain an updated driver’s license with current

address, to wear a safety belt, and to carry liability insurance when operating a motor vehicle

on a public road are, likewise, reasonable exercises of the State’s police power to enact

legislation for the safety and welfare of its citizens. Despite the defendant’s belief that his

actions affect no one other than himself, operating a motor vehicle on a public highway

necessarily subjects not only the defendant, but also other citizens and visitors to the state to

potential property and personal injury damages. We, therefore, conclude that the defendant

is not entitled to relief on his claims.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the trial

court.

_________________________________

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

-3-