Opinion ID: 1617215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: May Out-of-State Convictions be Counted?

Text: The trial court dismissed the action, along with the State's several arguments concerning legislative intent, by quoting a portion of the statute and then stating: It is quite apparent that although the respondent has been convicted of OMVUI on three different occasions in Missouri and on one occasion in Minnesota, he has not been convicted of a violation of 321.281 in those other states. The trial court did not specifically address the State's several arguments based on the wording of the statute and principles for ascertaining legislative intent. Perhaps the trial court was influenced in part by the State's apt concession, with reference to Iowa Code chapters 321 through 321C, that Iowa's law of the road is not a model of organization or clarity. Nevertheless, our task is to apply appropriate principles of statutory construction in deciding what the words of the statute mean, ever mindful of the polestar of all statutory constructionthe search for the true intention of the legislature. Iowa National Industrial Loan Co. v. Iowa State Department of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d 437, 439 (Iowa 1974). When we consider not only the wording of Iowa's several habitual traffic offender statutes but also the important purposes which they were designed to accomplish, we conclude that the trial court should have given defendant's out-of-state convictions the same effect as convictions in Iowa courts. A. Wording of Section 321.555. Defendant argues, and the trial court decided, that only Iowa convictions for driving while intoxicated are referred to in section 321.555(1)(b), because that subsection refers specifically to a particular Iowa criminal offenseOperating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321.281. One of the elements of that criminal offense is the operation of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state. Iowa Code § 321.281(1) (1983). We note, however, that the first paragraph of section 321.555 which defines habitual offender includes the more general word describedseparate and distinct offenses described in subsections 1, 2 or 3. (Emphasis added.) A conviction for driving while intoxicated in another state may arguably be a conviction for an offense described in section 321.281 if both Iowa and the other state require proof of essentially the same elements to support a conviction for that offense. The State makes another telling argument about the meaning of subsection 321.555(1)(b) based on a recent change in its wording and the reason for that change. Prior to July 1, 1982, that subsection did not refer specifically to section 321.281 which defines the Iowa crime of driving while intoxicated; rather, it read: b. Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a controlled substance as defined in section 204.101 [the section which identified certain controlled substances]. Iowa Code section 321.555(1)(b) (1981). In that form its wording was similar to subsections a, c, d, and e of section 321.555(1) which described traffic-related offenses without referring to their specific Iowa Code section numbers. Out-of-state convictions could readily be included within that earlier version of subsection b which more generally described the offense of driving while intoxicated. Moreover, the specific reference in subsection b to section 321.281 was added during the same session in which the legislature included in section 321.281 a new offensedriving with a blood alcohol level of .13 or greater. See 1981 Iowa Acts ch. 103, § 6, 1982 Iowa Acts ch. 1167 § 10. The State persuasively argues that the purpose of that change in the language of section 321.555(1)(b) was not to narrow the definition of offenses which could be used in revoking a license but rather to expand the definition to include the newly-added offense described in section 321.281driving with a blood-alcohol content of .13 or greater. The defendant and the State have also each contended that the other parties' interpretation is unreasonable because if the legislature had so intended it could and would have used other plainer language. Defendant contends that if the legislature had intended the statute to include out-of-state convictions, the statute would have expressly so provided, because other statutes in chapter 321 do so in express terms. See, e.g., Iowa Code §§ 321.205, .210(6) (1983). The State counters that the statute has no language expressly excluding out-of-state convictions, as it might have if the legislature had intended to exclude them. On balance we find little persuasive force in the parties' arguments concerning what the legislature might have said but did not. In construing statutes we search for the legislative intent as shown by what the legislature said, rather than what it should or might have said. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(13). B. Legislative Purpose. In construing this statute we should look to the object which the legislature sought to accomplish and the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied in order to reach a result which will best effectuate its purpose. Iowa National Industrial Loan Co. v. Iowa State Department of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d at 440; see Iowa Code §§ 4.2, 4.6(1), (5) (1983). The purpose of our habitual traffic offender statute is as clear-cut as it is important to the public welfare. As we said in State v. Thomas, 275 N.W.2d 422, 423 (Iowa 1979), this statute is designed to protect the public from those drivers who refuse to observe the rules of prudence and safety. The State's interpretation fulfills that important purpose. The public deserves to be protected from all persons who have habitually violated motor vehicle laws, whether the offenses were committed on Iowa streets and highways or those of other states. In considering this statute we should avoid strained, impractical, or absurd results. Iowa National Industrial Loan Co. v. Iowa State Department of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d at 440; see also Iowa Code § 4.4(3) (1983) (We are to presume a just and reasonable result is intended.). Defendant's interpretation would lead to an unreasonable result. The person who had twice been recently convicted in Iowa of driving while intoxicated or other offenses listed in section 321.555(1) would be at risk of losing operating privileges with one more conviction; yet the person with an identical record of traffic offenses in other states would not similarly be at risk. We think it unlikely that the legislature intended to treat more harshly persons who have been convicted of violating only Iowa traffic laws than persons who have violated similar laws of other states. Cf. State v. Nance, 197 Neb. 257, 258-61, 248 N.W.2d 339, 340-41 (1976) (construing habitual criminal statute to include out-of-state convictions notwithstanding contrary technical wording of statute). Our legislature certainly intended to safeguard persons on our roadways from all persons who have habitually violated motor vehicle laws in any and all states. C. Related Statutory Provisions. During our search for legislative intent we have examined other Iowa statutes relating to motor vehicle license revocation and suspension proceedings. Statutes relating to the same subject matter, or to closely allied subjects, may properly be construed, considered and examined in the light of their common purposes and intent. Bankers Trust Co. v. Woltz, 326 N.W.2d 274, 278 (Iowa 1982); Wonder Life Co. v. Liddy, 207 N.W.2d 27, 32 (Iowa 1973). Iowa Code sections 321.201-.215 shed considerable light on what our legislature intended in enacting the statute here in question. Those statutes, under the heading Cancellation, Suspension or Revocation of Licenses, authorize the Department of Transportation to remove operators' licenses for a variety of reasons without first commencing an action in court. For example, when the department has received a record of a person's convictions for certain listed serious traffic offenses, the department is required by Iowa Code section 321.209 to revoke the license of that operator. Similarily, when the department's records show that a person's driving record is deficient in respects listed in section 321.210, the department may suspend the person's license in accordance with rules promulgated by the department. As with section 321.555, convictions of various traffic offenses are often pivotal in deciding whether the department should remove an operator's license. In these administrative proceedings, it makes no difference whether the offenses were committed in Iowa or other states. Iowa Code section 321.205 states: Conviction in another state. The department is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of any resident of this state upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person in another state of an offense therein which, if committed in this state, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license of an operator or chauffeur. Similarly, one of the grounds for suspension of a license under section 321.210 is a showing that the licensee [h]as committed an offense in another state which if committed in this state would be grounds for suspension or revocation. Iowa Code § 321.210(6) (1983). The administrative proceedings authorized under sections 321.201-.215 serve much the same purpose as proceedings commenced in court under sections 321.555-.560. Both are designed to remove irresponsible drivers from our highways. Central to both types of proceedings is the abstract of the operator's driving record, including the record of convictions maintained by the Iowa Department of Transportation. Iowa Code chapter 321C authorizes Iowa to enter into interstate drivers license compacts with other states. Our legislature has therein provided that when convictions for such offenses as driving while intoxicated are reported from other states, Iowa is to give the same effect to the conduct reported as it would give if such conduct occurred in Iowa. See Iowa Code § 321C.1 (Article IVEffect of Conviction). Pursuant to chapter 321C the licensing departments in Iowa and other states report to each other all convictions for traffic-related offenses occurring within their respective jurisdictions. See Iowa Code § 321C.1 (Article IIIReports of Convictions). The Department of Transportation initiates administrative license-removal proceedings itself, based on reported records of convictions from Iowa and other states. Similarly, the Iowa Director of Transportation initiates civil actions which the county attorney then files under Iowa Code section 321.555; he shall certify three abstracts of the conviction record as maintained in the Department of Transportation of any person who appears to be a habitual offender, to the county attorney of the county in which such person resides.... Iowa Code § 321.556 (1983). Fundamentally, then, the commencement of administrative proceedings under sections 321.201-.215 as well as the filing of actions in court under sections 321.555-.560 are based on a certified record of each offender's convictions which, under chapter 321C, lists not only Iowa convictions but also convictions reported from courts in other states. Just such a certified record of defendant's multi-state convictions, maintained by the Iowa Department of Transportation, was introduced in evidence by the state in this case. We can discern no sound reason whatsoever for the legislature to intend that the Iowa Department of Transportation be allowed to use out-of-state convictions against convicted drivers in administrative proceedings but not in the proceedings filed under section 321.555. Read together, the statutory provisions governing suspension and revocation of the driving privileges of habitually irresponsible motor vehicle operators demonstrate our legislature's intention to treat in-state and out-of-state convictions as equivalents. Cf. Keith v. Capers, 362 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) (all provisions of Florida driver license law, read together, demonstrate intent to count substantially similar out-of-state convictions in habitual traffic offender case). The trial court erred in dismissing this action on the ground that out-of-state convictions could not be used to establish that defendant was a habitual traffic offender.