Court Opinion

ID: 9550260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:32:56.696592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:48.216921
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
Because misunderstanding of our holding in the present action might hamper proper law enforcement by public officers of this state, I wish to concur specially and emphasize certain aspects of Justice Smith’s opinion. That opinion does not concern itself with either the validity— here unchallenged — of the statutes regulating excessive weight,1 or with the authority — also here unquestioned — of a law enforcement officer to employ reasonable means in order to discover whether those statutes are being violated.2,3 Justice Smith’s opinion decides only that the criminal complaint was defective because Hahn’s conduct did not constitute the offense charged,4 violation of I.C. § 67-2927; I agree.
The pertinent language of I.C. § 67-2927 requires submission for inspection of “any merchandise, product or commodity” which is subject to “licensing] or tax[ing], * * * inspection or grading.” The statutes regulating excessive weight are concerned exclusively with gross loads, “vehicle * * * with the load thereon.”5 Such load need not be composed of items of “merchandise, product or commodity” as those words are commonly understood;6 rather, the only relevant characteristic of *269such load would be its heaviness. Being a penal statute, I.C. § 67-2927 “cannot be broadened or extended by construction to include and penalize acts or conduct not clearly within its terms.”7 And so the Justice Smith opinion, correctly I think, refuses to stretch the meaning of that statute to encompass Hahn’s refusal to submit his truck to the weight inspection.
SPEAR, J., concurs.

. I.C. §§ 49-901 and 49-906; I.C. § 49-909.

. See I.C. §§ 67-2901; 61-801(d); 67-2926(a); cf. Cornell v. Harris, 60 Idaho 87, 88 P.2d 498 (1939).

. It is of course an offense for “Every person who wilfully resists, delays/or obstructs any public officer, in the discharge, or attempt to' discharge, of any duty of his office.” I.C. § 18-705. Cf. State v. Winter, 24 Idaho 749, 135 P. 739 (1913); see generally 67 C.J.S. Obstructing Justice § 5 (1950); 39 Am. Jur., Obstructing Justice §§ 8, 10 (1942).

. See I.C. § 19-1411(2).

. I.C. g 49-901.

. Cf., State v. Campbell, 70 Idaho 408, 219 P.2d 956 (1950); State v. Cosgrove, 36 Idaho 278, 210 P. 393 (1922).

. State v. Fitzpatrick, 89 Idaho 568, 573, 407 P.2d 309, 311 (1965). Cf. Independent School District, etc. v. Collins, 15 Idaho 535, 98 P. 857 (1908); In re Dampier, 46 Idaho 195, 267 P. 452 (1928).