Court Opinion

ID: 9569705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:16:35.758723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:47.619950
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — I cannot agree with the majority that Laws of 1969, ch. 1, § 3 (now RCW 46.61.502) is open to interpretation. That provision plainly states that it is unlawful to drive a vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicants. If there were any doubt about it, that doubt is removed by RCW 46.61.005 which says in pertinent part:
The provisions of this chapter relating to the operation of vehicles refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon highways except:
(2) The provisions of . . . RCW 46.61.500 through 46.61.520 shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the state.
It is the duty of this court to give effect to all of the provisions of a statute. An act must not be construed so as to nullify, void or render meaningless or superfluous any section or words. Taylor v. Redmond, 89 Wn.2d 315, 571 P.2d 1388 (1977). This is precisely what the majority has done with the words "within this state" and "elsewhere through*651out the state."
The majority looks to the title of Laws of 1965, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 155 for support for its view that the provisions of RCW 46.61.502 were meant to apply only to intoxicated drivers who pose an immediate threat to other persons. It is true that the title of an act may be resorted to for aid in construing an ambiguous statute. We do not have before us such a statute. Moreover, section 1 of Laws of 1965, ch. 155 expressly declares that this section should apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the state. The body of a statute controls its meaning, rather than the heading. State v. Vaughan, 163 Wash. 681, 1 P.2d 888 (1931).
In its footnote 4, the majority also cites RCW 46.61.504, while commendably observing that it is not persuasive. Indeed that section, which evidently pertains to a person who is in control of a vehicle but not presently operating it, has no application here. The legislature could reasonably find that an intoxicated person in control of a vehicle but not operating it, does not present the same threat as one who is driving a vehicle, where the vehicle has been moved to a "position of safety". The only "position of safety" under those circumstances would be a stationary position. That is not the situation here.
I agree with the majority that the legislature doubtless found that intoxicated drivers constitute a menace to the safety of others. But I do not find in the statute any indication that the legislature considered the threat to exist only on the highways of the state. The language of the act is to the contrary. Furthermore, I do not agree that the only reasonable purpose to be served by the legislation was protection of others from the immediate threat posed by an intoxicated driver. An automobile being driven can move very quickly from a position of relative safety to one of great danger. The fact that the defendant was off the road and posed no immediate threat did not mean that he would not tire of driving his vehicle in circles and take to the road — or that he posed no threat to property or whatever life there might be in the area. Moreover, the legislature *652had a right to consider the threat that an intoxicated driver poses to his own safety. That the legislature may properly enact laws for the protection of the persons upon whom their burdens are placed, see State v. Laitinen, 77 Wn.2d 130, 459 P.2d 789 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1055 (1970) (motorcycle helmet law sustained); accord, State v. Zektzer, 13 Wn. App. 24, 533 P.2d 399, review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1013, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1020 (1975); and see State v. Smith, 93 Wn.2d 329, 610 P.2d 869 (1980).
This court has today read into the statute an exception which its language will not tolerate and which I fear will soon be back to haunt us.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
Utter, J., and Cunningham, J. Pro Tern., concur with Rosellini, J.