Title: State v. Cotton
Citation: 516 P.2d 715
Docket Number: 5400
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 1973

516 P.2d 715 (1973) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. COTTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 5400. Supreme Court of Hawaii. December 3, 1973. *716 James E. Cotton, pro se. Stephen Y. Lau, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu (Barry Chung, Pros. Atty., City and County of Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and MARUMOTO, ABE, LEVINSON and KOBAYASHI, JJ. ABE, Justice. The defendant, James E. Cotton, was charged with and convicted of, operating a motorcycle without goggles or face shield in violation of HRS § 286-81(1)(B).[1] He *717 appealed from the judgment and sentence entered. The defendant attacks the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted on several grounds. The defendant first attacks the constitutionality of HRS § 286-81(1)(B) by contending that requiring motorcyclists to wear goggles under threat of criminal sanction, but not requiring the same of operators of automobiles, results in arbitrary and capricious discrimination and violates the equal protection guaranty of the United States and Hawaii State Constitutions. We do not agree. "The general principle stated by the courts in the interpretation of the equal protection clause is that all persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed." State v. Johnston, 51 Haw. 195, 202, 456 P.2d 805, 809 (1969), appeal dismissed, 397 U.S. 336, 90 S. Ct. 1152, 25 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1970). "The guarantee ... of the equal protection of the laws is not a guarantee of equality of operation or application of state legislation upon all citizens of a state." Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137, 142, 45 S. Ct. 424, 426, 69 L. Ed. 884 (1925). "Thus, what is prohibited by the equal protection guaranty is class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others. The guaranty was not intended to take from the states the right and power to classify the subjects of legislation, provided such classification of persons and things is reasonable for the purpose of legislation." State v. Johnston, 51 Haw. at 203, 456 P.2d at 810 (1969), appeal dismissed, 397 U.S. 336, 90 S. Ct. 1152, 25 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1970). The classification attacked here is for regulatory purposes, and the burden is upon the defendant to show that it is arbitrary and capricious and that it bears no reasonable relation to the object of legislation. The general law is that regulatory classifications are presumed valid and constitutional, and are to be upheld unless no reasonable state of facts is conceivable to support them. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 (1952); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1961); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S. Ct. 461, 99 L. Ed. 563 (1955). Under the record of this case, the sole basis for the equal protection argument is that motorcyclists and operators of automobiles are treated differently. We recognize that, as the U.S. Supreme Court said in Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., supra at 489, 75 S.Ct. at 465: We find no difficulty in discerning a reasonable basis for difference in the legislative treatment accorded motorcyclists, on the one hand, and operators of automobiles, on the other. The physical characteristics of automobiles and motorcycles are evidently different, as are the skills for, and conditions, of operating these vehicles. These differences have repeatedly been held to be a reasonable basis *718 for legislative classification.[2] Thus, we hold that the statute in question does not violate the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the United States or Hawaii State Constitutions. The defendant next attacks the constitutionality of HRS § 286-81(1)(B) on the ground that wearing of goggles would jeopardize his life in violation of the due process of law guaranty. He cites various reports and studies in an attempt to show the lack of wisdom demonstrated by the legislature in its enactment of this statutory provision. We cannot agree with the defendant that the legislature showed lack of good judgment in enacting the law. However, even if we did, we believe that enactment of laws is the prerogative of the legislature and it is not for the judiciary to secondguess the legislature or substitute its judgment for that of the legislature. The due process of law guaranty does not give this court or any court the authority to substitute judges' opinions for legislators' opinions as to the wisdom of any law enacted. As stated by Justice Frankfurter, in his concurring opinion in A.F. of L. v. American Sash Co., 335 U.S. 538, at 556-557, 69 S. Ct. 258, 267, 93 L. Ed. 222 (1949): Also, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 537-538, 54 S. Ct. 505, 516, 78 L. Ed. 940 (1934): See also West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 398-400, 57 S. Ct. 578, 81 L. Ed. 703 (1937). Today the due process doctrine is concerned chiefly with procedural fairness. The due process issue raised by the defendant here has nothing to do with procedure. We cannot say that the statute violates "substantive" due process even though the defendant contends that wearing of goggles does not lessen the number or severity of motorcycle injuries, citing various research projects and other reports. The State points to other studies and reports, as well as to those very reports referred to by the defendant to argue otherwise. At the least, we believe that whether use of goggles would prevent injuries, or lessen the severity of injuries suffered, is debatable. We believe that the legislature could have reasonably determined that the use of goggles would accomplish the results intended. Thus, under the record of the case, it cannot be said that the statute is arbitrary and capricious. We therefore hold that the statute does not violate the due process guaranty. The defendant next claims that requiring motorcyclists to wear safety glasses or goggles is not a reasonable exercise of the police power by the State. On the other hand, the State contends that it has substantial interest in highway safety. We agree with the State's contention, because it is clear that the legislature has the power to control and regulate the use of our highways. This power necessarily includes the right to enact safety requirements. Contrary to the defendant's contention that the requirement for the wearing of goggles has no "redeeming benefit to society" that would justify the enactment of HRS § 286-81(1)(B) under the State's police power, we believe that the requirement is a reasonable exercise of the police power. We see a distinct possibility that wind-blown objects, such as dust, rain, flying insects, etc., could strike the eyes of a motorcyclist and cause him to lose control of his motorcycle, and thereby endanger the safety of other users of highways. We believe that the purpose or object of the safety requirement is crystal clear and that it is to insure that a motorcyclist's vision will not be impaired to the extent that the safety of other users of our highways could be jeopardized. We agree with the defendant that the requirement to a certain extent stifles fundamental personal liberties; *720 however, we cannot see how the legislature could have achieved the objective more narrowly than by the requirement imposed by the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court in Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594, 82 S. Ct. 987, 990, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1962) said: Also in Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488, 81 S. Ct. 247, 252, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960), the Court said: We believe that the provision in question meets the standards established by the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, we hold that the requirement imposed is a reasonable exercise of the State's power to promote public safety on its highways, a legitimate governmental objective, and therefore the statute is constitutional. Affirmed. [1] HRS § 286-81(1) provides in pertinent part: § 286-81 Motorcycle, motor scooter, etc.; protective devices. No person shall: (1) Operate a motorcycle or motor scooter on any highway in the State unless he and any passenger he carries on the motorcycle or motor scooter wears (A) a safety helmet securely fastened with a chin strap; (B) safety glasses, goggles, or a face shield, in the case of a motorcycle or motor scooter that is not equipped with windscreens or windshields; ... [2] Courts of other jurisdictions have considered similar statutes and rejected arguments that the classification here complained of violated the equal protection guarantee. The People v. Fries, 42 Ill. 2d 446, 448, 250 N.E.2d 149, 150 (1969); Simon v. Sargent, 346 F. Supp. 277, 279 (D.Mass., 1972), aff'd mem. 409 U.S. 1020, 93 S. Ct. 463, 34 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1972); Everhardt v. City of New Orleans, 253 La. 285, 294, 217 So. 2d 400, 403 (1968), appeal dismissed, 395 U.S. 212, 89 S. Ct. 1775, 23 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1969).