Court Opinion

ID: 9740362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:33:23.649582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.645801
License: Public Domain

*220WOLLMAN, Justice
(dissenting).
If it were our function to conduct courses in legislative draftsmanship, then I might very well agree that the title to Chapter 229, Laws of 1970, is not that model of clarity and comprehensiveness one might desire. Because we deal with the real rather than with the hypothetical, however, we should recognize and make allowances for the exigent circumstances attendant upon the enactment of Chapter 229.
On January 23, 1970, this court held invalid a substantial portion of the then existing drug abuse control act, SDCL 39-17-21(4) (c), in the case of State v. Johnson, 84 S.D. 556, 173 N.W.2d 894. This was during the 30-day legislative session. South Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 6. It is apparent that the members of the legislature did not have the opportunity for contemplative thought regarding the niceties of drafting the title to Chapter 229. They were faced with the need to enact a comprehensive drug act to meet the growing problem of drug abuse and they took such action as they thought was necessary to meet their responsibilities in this area.
Section 21, Article III must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the role of liberal construction announced in State v. Morgan, 2 S.D. 32, 48 N.W. 314, where the court wrote:
“* * * It is sufficient if the language used in the title, on a fair construction, indicates the purpose of the legislature, so that making every reasonable intendment in favor of the act it may be said that the subject of the law is expressed in the title.” 48 N.W. 314, 317.
To hold that the title to Chapter 229 is restrictive in nature, that it gives no intimation of its actual scope, and that it does not fairly apprise that it contains a comprehensive drug control act is to engage in strict construction with a vengeance.
It seems to me to be beyond question but that the title to Chapter 229 is valid under the reasoning of Garrey v. Schnider, 78 S.D. 596, 105 N.W.2d 860. The matter of public concern in *221the instant case was the problem of drug abuse. The language of the title to Chapter 229 clearly states the subject of the act — the establishment of the office of drugs and substances control to meet the problem of narcotics drugs and substances abuse— encompasses the subject of public concern which was the subject of the act, and places interested persons on inquiry as the regulations appearing in the body of the act. See also State v. Shearer, 86 S.D. 711, 201 N.W.2d 180.
I would affirm the trial court’s order overruling defendant’s demurrer.