Court Opinion

ID: 9714285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:34:37.726161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.983220
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION

Arterburn, J.
The principal legislative purpose in the enactment of statutes licensing the operation of motor vehicles on the public highway is the safety of the *128traveler thereon. Therefore, to give one who has repeatedly violated the law against driving while intoxicated a restricted right to operate a motor vehicle on the highway because he has dependents, while another like offender without dependents is denied such a privilege, is discriminatory and violates the principle of equality before the law. Carrying the theory to its logical extent, could it be said that one who has repeatedly committed vicious crimes such as murder or rape is entitled to be let at large, to prey upon the public because he has dependents, while another committing like crimes must be under the law executed or serve life imprisonment as a result of not having dependents ? The same question may be posed regarding the criminal insane who have dependents.
Legislation which has as its purpose the protection of the public from certain dangers and evils must be construed with that objective in mind and with the principle that all persons shall be treated equally. The classification attempted to be made here by reason of having dependents, has no relationship to the objective and purpose of the law, namely, the protection of the public traveling on the highway. The majority opinion in effect approves the constitutionality of such classification and unequal treatment. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; Art. 4, Section 22, Constitution of Indiana; Dowd, Warden v. Stuckey (1943), 222 Ind. 100, 51 N. E. 2d 947; Duncan v. State of Missouri (1894), 152 U. S. 377, 38 L. Ed. 485, 14 S. Ct. 570.
Landis, Judge, concurs in dissent.
Note. — Reported in 170 N. E. 2d 51.