Title: STATE v DEITCHLER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-224
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 1982

NO. 81-224 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 STATE O F XONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, V S . WESTLEY F. DEITCHLER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l I n and f o r t h e County of Rosebud Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, Judse p r e s i d i n q . Counsel of Record: For A.ppellant: lilestley F. D e i t c h l e r , Pro Se, Forsyth, Jqontana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John Maynard arqued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana John S. Forsythe, County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana S. Charles S p r i n k l e arqued, Deputy County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana Submitted.: S e p S e ~ b e r 8 I 1982 Decided: October 7 , 1982 Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. On August 4 , 1980, t h e d e f e n d a n t was stopped by a highway patrolman and i s s u e d c i t a t i o n s f o r wasting n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and f o r f a i l i n g t o d i s p l a y a Montana d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e on demand. He was c o n v i c t e d of t h e two misdemeanors f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e J u s t i c e Court of Rosebud County. H e appealed t o t h e District Court and, f o l l o w i n g a t r i a l w i t n o u t a j u r y , was a g a i n c o n v i c t e d of t h e two o f - f e n s e s . T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : 1. Whether s e c t i o n 61-5-116, MCA, r e q u i r i n g t h a t a d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e be c a r r i e d by t h e o p e r a t o r of a motor v e h i c l e and t h a t it be e x h i b i t e d on demand, is c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l ; and, 2. Whether s e c t i o n 61-8-304, MCA, d e c l a r i n g t h a t speed l i m i t s s h o u l d be set by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i n conformance w i t h l i m i t s imposed by f e d e r a l law, is c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l . A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s both s t a t u t e s on a due p r o c e s s b a s i s . H e premises h i s argument upon t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e use of p u b l i c highways by i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r v e h i c l e s and w i t h t h e i r g a s o l i n e is a r i g h t . H e contends t h a t t h e p o l i c e power of t h e s t a t e may n o t be e x e r c i s e d t o r e g u l a t e a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s use and c o n t r o l of h i s p r o p e r t y i n an a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e g e n e r a l w e l f a r e and s a f e t y of t h e p e o p l e of t h e s t a t e . R a t h e r , he a r g u e s t h a t o n l y when an i n d i v i - d u a l h a s i n f a c t harmed a n o t h e r through i r r e s p o n s i b l e u s e of h i s p r o p e r t y may t h e s t a t e e x e r c i s e its p o l i c e power. Appel- l a n t ' s argument is w i t h o u t m e r i t . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n 1837 recognized t h a t s t a t e and l o c a l governments p o s s e s s an i n h e r e n t power t o e n a c t r e a s o n a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n f o r t h e h e a l t h , s a f e t y , w e l f a r e , o r m o r a l s o f t h e p u b l i c . C h a r l e s River B r i d g e v. Warren B r i d g e Co. ( 1 8 3 7 ) , 36 U.S. (11 P e t . ) 420. T h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t such a p o l i c e power e x i s t s even though t h e r e g u l a t i o n may f r e q u e n t l y be a n i n f r i n g e m e n t of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s . S t a t e v. Rathbone ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 110 Mont. 225, 241, 100 P.2d 86, 92. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Penny ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 42 Mont. 118, 111 P. 727. R e g u l a t i o n s t h a t a r e f o r m u l a t e d w i t h i n t h e s t a t e ' s p o l i c e power w i l l be presumed r e a s o n a b l e a b s e n t a c l e a r showing t o t h e c o n t r a r y . B e t t e y v. C i t y o f S i d n e y ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 79 Mont. 314, 319, 257 P. 1007, 1009. Appel- l a n t h a s n o t m e t h i s burden of making s u c h a showing. Whether u s e of p u b l i c highways h a s been h e l d t o be a r i g h t o r a p r i v i l e g e , c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y i m p l i e d l y o r e x p r e s s l y acknowledged t h e power of t h e s t a t e t o r e q u i r e l i c e n s i n g p r o c e d u r e s t o be followed p r i o r t o u s e of t h e highways and have acknowledged t h e s t a t e ' s power t o p r o p e r l y r e g u l a t e t r a f f i c on t h e highways. Mackey v. Montrym ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 443 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321; Dixon v. Love ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 431 U . S . 105, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172; B e l l v. Burson ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 402 U . S . 535, 9 1 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90; Popp v. Motor V e h i c l e Department ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 211 Kan. 763, 508 P.2d 991; Robertson v. S t a t e e x r e l . L e s t e r (Okla. 1 9 7 2 ) , 501 P.2d 1099; Campbell v. S t a t e Dept. of Rev., Div. of Motor V e h i c l e s ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 176 Colo. 202, 491 P.2d 1385, 60 kLK3d 419; S t a t e v. Shak ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 5 1 Haw. 612, 680, 466 P.2d 422, c e r t . d e n i e d , 400 U.S. 930, 9 1 S.Ct. 191, 27 L.Ed.2d 190; Adams v. C i t y of P o c a t e l l o ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 91 Idaho 99, 416 P.2d 46. See a l s o , Annot., 6 ALR3d 506; Annot., 86 ALR3d We nave 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. We have also recognized that the state's exercise of police power in setting speed limits is in the best interests of the state's economy and is in keeping with the national goals of conservation of gasoline and oil and of improved safety, Lee v. State (1981), Mont . I 635 P.2d 1282, 1287, 39 St.Rep. 1729, cert. denied, U.S. Appellant's contentions fail. Affirmed. R44-4, @&&a Chief Justice We concur: