Opinion ID: 2624966
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The License Must Be Aimed at Achieving a Legitimate Public Purpose

Text: ¶ 53 The only reason to require driver's licenses in general, and commercial driver's licenses in particular, is to make the highways as safe as possible by requiring each potential operator to demonstrate a knowledge of rules and regulations of the road, a history of compliance with those rules and regulations, and the physical ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. State v. Clifford, 57 Wash.App. 127, 132, 787 P.2d 571 (1990). ¶ 54 Similarly, Washington's Uniform Commercial Driver's License Act, chapter 46.25 RCW, states the purpose of the chapter is to reduce or prevent commercial motor vehicle accidents, fatalities, and injuries by ... [d]isqualifying commercial drivers who have committed certain serious traffic violations, or other specified offenses. RCW 46.25.005(1)(b). See Merseal v. Dep't of Licensing, 99 Wash.App. 414, 418-19, 994 P.2d 262 (2000) (holding the Uniform Commercial Driver's License Act is liberally construed to protect the public from alcohol impaired drivers of commercial vehicles and that public safety is a sufficient basis for distinguishing between commercial drivers and the general public). ¶ 55 Just as initially granting or withholding a driver's license must at least be rationally related to promoting the safety of the streets and highways, revocation of that license must similarly be necessary to achieve that goal. State v. Hopkins, 109 Wash.App. 558, 564, 36 P.3d 1080 (2001) (A long line of Washington cases holds that revocation of a driver's license is ... designed solely for the protection of the public in the use of highways.). Moreover, licenses are remedial (i.e., protecting highway safety), not punitive. State v. McClendon, 131 Wash.2d 853, 868, 935 P.2d 1334 (1997); State v. Griffin, 126 Wash.App. 700, 705, 109 P.3d 870, 873 (2005) ([T]he general rule in Washington has long been `the suspension or revocation of a driver's license is not penal in nature and is not intended as punishment, but is designed solely for the protection of the public in the use of the highways.). ¶ 56 Before enactment of the statute at issue, the governing statutory authority to suspend driver's licenses set forth six grounds for license revocation. These were all related to the traffic safety: (1) Has committed an offense for which mandatory revocation or suspension of license is provided by law; (2) Has, by reckless or unlawful operation of a motor vehicle, caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or injury to any person or serious property damage; (3) Has been convicted of offenses against traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles, or found to have committed traffic infractions, with such frequency as to indicate a disrespect for traffic laws or a disregard for the safety of other persons on the highways; (4) Is incompetent to drive a motor vehicle under RCW 46.20.031(3); or (5) Has failed to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, failed to appear at a requested hearing, violated a written promise to appear in court, or has failed to comply with the terms of a notice of traffic infraction or citation ...; or (6) Has committed one of the prohibited practices relating to drivers' licenses defined in RCW 46.20.336. Former RCW 46.20.291 (1993) (emphasis added). ¶ 57 However the challenged amendment to RCW 46.20.291 added a seventh ground, unrelated to traffic safety: (7) Has been certified by the department of social and health services as a person who is not in compliance with a child support order or a residential or visitation order as provided in RCW 74.20A.320. Former RCW 46.20.291 (1997). [8]