Court Opinion

ID: 9749851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 13:58:47.321137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:58.520176
License: Public Domain

Barney, J.
(in dissent). I cannot deny that the result reached by the majority in this case is safely within constitutional limits. Indeed, my difference with the opinion is based on what I view to be a needless sensitivity to presumed constitutional restrictions. It seems to me that the preservation of whatever functional independence remains for state sovereignty requires careful weighing of federally required *45constitutional standards. I view it as a duty of this Court to support the decisions of our own Legislature to the fullest extent possible consistent with the requirements of state and federal constitutions, whatever our personal views may be as to preferable language or even the wisdom involved in a particular enactment.
With those considerations put foremost, I see no justification for calling the present version of 28 V.S.A. § 1205 constitutionally infirm. As I understand the majority opinion, it rests on the doctrine of U.S. v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), which prohibits the needless burdening of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. I join with the Chief Justice in pointing out that the coupling of the exercise of the right of trial by jury to the threat of a death penalty, for no stated policy reason, is certainly properly constitutional condemnable, but a far cry from the statutory situation here.
I find it not only significant, but striking, that the United States Supreme Court has found it proper to burden certain constitutional rights with the intrusion of a compelled blood test. Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 1 L.Ed.2d 448, 77 S.Ct. 408 (1957); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 86 S.Ct. 1826 (1966). The justification, in the words of Mr. Justice Clark, results from “The increasing slaughter on our highways, most of which should be avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield.” Breithaupt v. Abram, supra, 352 U.S. at 439.
This is the very basis of the legislation questioned in the majority opinion. In the face of such language from the highest court in the land, how can the present statutory scheme be challenged as a “needless” burden?
Having in mind that it is invidious discrimination that constitutional proscriptions are directed to, it seems certainly possible to support the existing version of 23 V.S.A. § 1205, as this Court is bound to do, if possible. The purpose of the statute is to make physical evidence available to the prosecution where a person is suspected of operating a motor vehicle when intoxicated. There is a legislatively created contractual agreement imposed to accomplish this, through the implica*46tion of consent, with suspension the penalty for breach of performance. This is properly not held to be invidious.
The ability to comply with the provision requiring submission to any of the tests authorized is transitory. The passage of time renders test results worthless. Thus, the ability to fulfill the statutory obligation and perform the implicit agreement is likewise short-lived. A breach rapidly becomes irretrievable.
Although it may become impossible to provide the precise physical evidence, the statutory purpose can as effectively be fulfilled by a concession that the results would be incriminatory. This is accomplished by a plea of guilty, and is recognized by the statute. In effect, an operator is given a second opportunity to perform his obligation and avoid the penalty of a breach. This hardly seems invidious.
Classification, as an aid to constitutional logic, requires careful handling lest it degenerate into tautology or question-begging. The infinite possibilities of defining classes will frequently reflect the point of vantage from which the definer views the problem. Even so, perhaps it would be helpful to tender an alternate classification design attributable to 23 V.S.A. § 1205 to that advanced by the plaintiff.
That statute sets apart those who comply with the testing provision purposes from those who do not. It allows for admission to the unpunished class by two kinds of performance. The penalty is applicable only to those who reject both opportunities to perform. Whatever additional considerations attach to his choice in the second or plea situation arise on account of his voluntary decision, in the first instance, to refuse to be tested. Although benefits may accrue from a guilty plea, at the second stage, they are not such as, in my view, make the second plea compelled or involuntary. Social or constitutional policy does not require that one who has failed to comply with the testing law be given larger consideration than the operator who honors his commitment to the public. I would hold that the right to perform by way of entry of a plea of guilty under 23 V.S.A. § 1205 is not an unconstitutional provision.
I would uphold the statute.