Opinion ID: 1920407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 346.63(1)(b), STATS.

Text: McManus and Pangman challenge the constitutionality of sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., on several grounds. Defendants both contend the breath provision violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. Pangman additionally contends that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has unconstitutionally usurped legislative authority by implicitly defining the term breath in sec. 346.63(1)(b) and that the breath provision is unconstitutionally vague as applied. [5, 6] The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law which this court may review without deference to the lower court. State ex rel. Jones v. Gerhardstein, 141 Wis. 2d 710, 733, 416 N.W.2d 88 (1987). Legislative enactments are presumed constitutional, and this court has stated it will sustain a statute against attack if there is any reasonable basis for the exercise of legislative power. State v. Muehlenberg, 118 Wis. 2d 502, 506-07, 347 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1984). The party bringing the challenge must show the statute to be unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Mulder v. Acme-Cleveland Corp., 95 Wis. 2d 173, 187, 290 N.W.2d 276, 283 (1980). Every presumption must be indulged to sustain the law if at all possible and, wherever doubt exists as to a legislative enactment's constitutionality, it must be resolved in favor of constitutionality. State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, 58 Wis. 2d 32, 46, 205 N.W.2d 784 (1973). The court cannot reweigh the facts found by the legislature. If the court can conceive any facts on which the legislation could reasonably be based, it must hold the legislation constitutional. State ex rel. Strykowski v. Wilkie, 81 Wis. 2d 491, 506, 261 N.W.2d 434 (1978).
The due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution provide: No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV, Section 1, United States Constitution. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Wisconsin Constitution provide: All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness .... Article I, Section 1, Wisconsin Constitution. [7] This court has held the due process and equal protection clauses of the Wisconsin Constitution are the substantial equivalents of their respective clauses in the federal constitution. State ex rel. Cresci v. Schmidt, Secretary of the Department of Health & Social Services, 62 Wis. 2d 400, 414, 215 N.W.2d 361 (1974). [8, 9] Due process requires that the means chosen by the legislature bear a reasonable and rational relationship to the purpose or object of the enactment; if it does, and the legislative purpose is a proper one, the exercise of the police power is valid. State v. Jackman, 60 Wis. 2d 700, 705, 211 N.W.2d 480 (1973). The police power of the state is the inherent power of the government to promote the general welfare. It covers all matters having a reasonable relation to the protection of the public health, safety or welfare. State v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc., 65 Wis. 2d 482, 490, 222 N.W.2d 912 (1974) (Citations omitted). [10-13] Equal protection similarly requires that there exist a reasonable and practical grounds for the classifications drawn by the legislature. State v. Menard, Inc., 121 Wis. 2d 199, 203, 358 N.W.2d 813 (Ct. App. 1984). The breath provision of sec. 346.63(1)(b) sets forth two classes: those below the prohibited breath alcohol concentration, and those at or above it. Equal protection does not deny a state the power to treat persons within its jurisdiction differently; rather, the state retains broad discretion to create classifications so long as the classifications have a reasonable basis. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371 (1971). The fact a statutory classification results in some inequity, however, does not provide sufficient grounds for invalidating a legislative enactment. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 273 (1978). Where, as here, a suspect classification is not alleged, the legislative enactment must be sustained unless it is `patently arbitrary' and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 683 (1973). If the classification is reasonable and practical in relation to the objective, that is sufficient and doubts must be resolved in favor of the reasonableness of the classification. Jackman, 60 Wis. 2d at 705-06. The purpose of sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., is to encourage the prosecution of alcohol-impaired drivers. Section 967.055(1)(a). The ability to prove intoxication by means of a prohibited breath as well as blood alcohol concentration furthers that purpose. See State v. Nordness, 128 Wis. 2d 15, 27 n. 5, 381 N.W.2d 300 (1986). The removal of alcohol-impaired drivers is further facilitated by sec. 346.63(1)(b) because under the statute, proof of actual impairment is unnecessary. See Muehlenberg, 118 Wis. 2d at 505. Defendants argue sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., violates due process because the statute prohibits driving or operating a motor vehicle with the specified breath alcohol concentration even though it is alcohol in the blood, not the breath, which causes impairment. The breath provision alone is an inadequate indicator of alcohol impairment, Defendants assert, because with respect to a person with a partition ratio of less than 2,100:1, the breath test overestimates the person's corresponding blood alcohol concentration. Defendants additionally argue that breath tests are inherently unreliable because a person's breath test result may vary from breath to breath. Defendants argue sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., violates equal protection because a person with a partition ratio of less than 2,100:1 could be convicted of violating the breath provision even though the person's corresponding blood alcohol concentration was below the legal limit of 0.1 percent. [14] We conclude the breath provision of sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., violates neither due process nor equal protection. It is evident from the breath provision that the legislature has determined the operation of a motor vehicle by a person with a breath alcohol concentration of 0.1 grams or more endangers public safety. See Muehlenberg, 118 Wis. 2d at 505. The records here provide ample evidence to support the legislature's determination that the specified breath alcohol concentration is an accurate and reliable indicator of alcohol impairment. At McManus' trial, the State's expert, Patrick Harding, a chemist with the State Laboratory of Hygiene, testified that a breath alcohol concentration of .08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters has been found, with years of research by scientists to be the level at and above which everyone is impaired with respect to operating a motor vehicle. Harding further testified that based upon his experience and training, the Intoxilyzer 5000 accurately measures a person's breath alcohol concentration and that it was an accepted breath testing device in the scientific community. At Pangman's trial, the State's expert, Dr. Patricia Field, chief of the State Laboratory of Hygiene, testified extensively regarding the level of impairment caused by a breath alcohol concentration of 0.1 grams or more per 210 liters of breath. Dr. Field testified that such a breath alcohol concentration would significantly impair a person's vision, judgment, coordination, response time, and information processing rate. As discussed above, the argument that it is only alcohol in the blood which results in impairment misconstrues this court's statement in Walstad. In Brayman, similar due process and equal protection challenges based upon the argument that it is only alcohol in the blood, not the breath, which causes impairment were likewise denied. Brayman, 751 P.2d at 299-303. Defendants rely upon the decision of a Nebraska court of appeals in State v. Burling, 224 Neb. 725, 400 N.W.2d 872 (1987), in contending the breath standard alone is an inadequate indicator of alcohol impairment. Defendants' reliance upon Burling is misplaced, however, because central to that decision was that a breath test result was by statute relevant only for purposes of showing the person's corresponding blood alcohol concentration. See id. at 875. In Burling, the defendant introduced uncontroverted evidence that a person's partition ratio may vary from 1,100:1 to 3,400:1. Id. at 876. The court of appeals, bound by a higher state court decision which held that a test result subject to a margin of error had to be adjusted so as to give the person tested the benefit of that margin, determined that the defendant's breath test result could only be used to establish his corresponding blood alcohol concentration by utilizing a partition ratio of 1,100:1. Id. at 876-77. There is no requirement in sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., that a correlation between breath and blood alcohol concentrations exist.
Pangman further contends the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) has unconstitutionally usurped legislative authority by implicitly defining the term breath in sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., as the last 81 ml. of deep lung alveolar air. Pangman argues the legislature's grant of authority to the DOT in sec. 343.305(6)(b), Stats., which allows the DOT to approve techniques or methods of performing chemical analysis of the breath, does not include the authority to alter the meaning of the term breath in sec. 346.63(1)(b). Pangman relies upon State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. McTigue, 387 So. 2d 454 (Fla. App. 1980), to support his argument. In McTigue, a Florida court of appeals considered a state statute which required that to be certified, a midwife must attend a certain number of births under the supervision of a licensed physician and must obtain a written statement from the physician concerning attendance. The state agency implementing the statute included in its regulations the additional requirement that the supervising physician be licensed in Florida. The McTigue court held the state agency had usurped legislative authority by changing the plain and ordinary meaning of the term physician which, as used in the statute, meant a physician licensed under the laws of any state. McTigue, 387 So. 2d at 455-56. [15] We find no merit in Pangman's claim. Unlike McTigue, here the DOT has not enacted a regulation which expressly defines a statutory term. By approving of the Intoxilyzer 5000 as a means of measuring breath alcohol concentration, see Wis. Admin. Code Sec. Trans. 311.04, the DOT has merely acted in accordance with the authority granted to it by the legislature pursuant to sec. 343.305(6)(b), Stats. See State v. Dwinell, 119 Wis. 2d 305, 309-10, 349 N.W.2d 739 (Ct. App. 1984).
Pangman additionally contends sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., is unconstitutionally vague as applied because of the highly technical definition given the term breath by the DOT. [16] This court has applied a two part analysis for determining whether a statute is void for vagueness: first, the statute must be sufficiently definite to give persons of ordinary intelligence who seek to avoid its penalties fair notice of the conduct required or prohibited; and second, the statute must provide standards for those who enforce the laws and adjudicate guilt. See City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 546, 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989). Pangman argues that by approving of the Intoxilyzer 5000 as a means of testing breath alcohol concentration, the DOT has altered the otherwise unambiguous meaning of the term breath. Relying upon State v. Popanz, 112 Wis. 2d 166, 332 N.W.2d 750 (1983), Pangman asserts the term breath in sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., fails the first part of the void for vagueness test because no ordinary person could reasonably anticipate that what the statute prohibits is having more than a certain amount of alcohol in the last 81 ml. of exhaled deep lung air. In Popanz, this court held a statute containing the phrase private school was unconstitutionally vague because the phrase was not defined by the relevant statutes or administrative regulations, nor did the phrase have a commonly understood meaning. Id. at 174. [17] We are not persuaded by Pangman's argument. Unlike the phrase private school, the term breath has a commonly understood meaning. By approving of the Intoxilyzer 5000, the DOT has merely acted pursuant to its authority in sec. 343.305(6)(b), Stats. As the Muehlenberg court did with respect to the blood provision, we take judicial notice of the fact that it takes more than the consumption of a small amount of alcohol to accumulate a breath alcohol concentration of 0.1 grams or more of alcohol in 210 liters of breath. See Muehlenberg, 118 Wis. 2d at 508. A person with common intelligence will know that when consumption is approaching a meaningful amount, he or she will be in jeopardy of violating the breath provision. See id. at 508-09; see also Brayman, 751 P.2d at 301. Pangman does not argue sec. 346.63(1)(b), Stats., violates the second part of the void for vagueness test. As to that part, Muehlenberg is dispositive. The Muehlenberg court concluded the blood provision of sec. 346.63(1)(b) could not be more precise as a standard of law enforcement because it leaves no discretion to enforcement authorities. Muehlenberg, 118 Wis. 2d at 507. That same reasoning is applicable here with respect to the breath provision.