Opinion ID: 1119388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alaska Statute 28.15.166(g) Is Unconstitutional as Applied.

Text: A statute may be unconstitutional either on its face or as applied. See Gilmore v. Alaska Workers' Compensation Bd., 882 P.2d 922, 929 n. 17 (Alaska 1994). A statute is facially unconstitutional if no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). In most cases the issues set forth in subsection .166(g) are the only issues that need to be determined in order to review the revocation decision. Since AS 28.15.166(g) can be applied constitutionally in many circumstances, it is not facially unconstitutional. To use the terms of the statutory saving clause, AS 01.10.030, [5] the application of the limiting language in the act is only invalid under circumstances in which due process requires that other contested issues be established; in the absence of such circumstances all of the language of the act may be given application. The decision of the superior court is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to remand to the Department for a new hearing which will include an inquiry into whether Javed was driving. [6]