Following the administrative revocation of his driver's license, Rexford asked the district court to dismiss the criminal prosecution. He argued that because he had already been punished once for his violation of the liquor laws, it would be illegal to punish him again for the same conduct. Rexford argued, however, that Zerkel was distinguishable from his case because, unlike the defendants in Zerkel, Rexford had not engaged in any act of driving C only drinking. Rexford argued that the Department of Public Safety had no valid administrative interest in regulating or restricting his ability to drive based on his act of drinking, when that drinking was unconnected to the operation of a motor vehicle. Magistrate Hegyi wrote, Studies have shown that young drivers who drink are a danger not only to themselves but to everyone else.
Teenagers have the highest alcohol-involved fatal accident rate of any age group.
The magistrate therefore denied Rexford's motion to dismiss, and Rexford was subsequently convicted of minor consuming. Rexford has appealed the district court's decision, but he has elected to rely on his trial court memorandum rather than file a brief in this court. Based on the district court's findings, we too conclude that there is a valid regulatory purpose in restricting or revoking the driver's licenses of underage drinkers. A minor whose license has been revoked in an administrative proceeding under that statute may still be prosecuted for the offense of minor consuming. 1 See the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Alaska Constitution.