Court Opinion

ID: 9539442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:04:23.699149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:49.442266
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result and in that part of the court’s opinion holding that W.S. 31-7-126 (Cum.Supp.1990) and 31-7-128(f) (Cum. Supp.1990) violate the equal protection and due process clauses found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, §§ 2 and 6 of the Wyoming Constitution.
I do not agree that Hoem v. State, 756 P.2d 780 (Wyo.1988), is “completely consistent” with Justice Stevens’ analysis in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 451, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3260, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring), or that it is authority for the decision in this case. If it were so, I would have affirmed. Hoem involved no statutory criminal activity, no license revocation, no enhanced penalty for violation of a criminal law, and a reasonable classification not based on age alone. Hoem was a case in which legislation was enacted to deal with a perceived serious problem in the medical negligence area. The statutes adopted had a valid purpose; the means adopted for accomplishing that purpose was reasonable; and there was substantial connection between the purpose and the provisions of the statutes creating the medical review panel. No rights were lost, no real penalty imposed. Similar statutes had been held constitutional by other states (more than 22). Three states had held dissimilar statutes unconstitutional. See Hoem, 756 P.2d at 787 (Cardine, J., dissenting).
The Medical Review Panel Act was not unlike the procedure established for bringing a sexual harassment suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before *182suit is filed, a charge must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which has six months to investigate, conciliate and attempt to resolve the conflict. The Act simply did not create a constitutionally objectionable scheme such as the one we address here.
Now, to the case at hand. The driver’s licenses of appellants (minors under the age of 19 years) were revoked because they possessed alcoholic beverages. It is a violation of W.S. 12-6-101 for a minor under the age of 19 years to possess alcoholic beverages (subject to an employment or working exception). It is a violation of W.S. 12-6-101 for a minor under the age of 21 years to possess alcoholic beverages (subject to an employment or working exception). It is lawful for a person over the age of 21 years to possess an alcoholic beverage.
(a) A person under the age of 19 years who possesses an alcoholic beverage may be fined $750, sentenced to six months in county jail, and his driver’s license is revoked.
(b) A person over the age of 19 years and under 21 years who possesses an alcoholic beverage may be fined $750 and sentenced to six months in county jail.
(c) A person over the age of 21 years who possesses an alcoholic beverage is subject to no fine or penalty at all.
All persons who engage in this same activity are divided into three classifications. The classes are separated by age only. The age difference between the most penalized and the least penalized class is two years and one day. Yet we were informed at argument that the revocation of the driver’s licenses of persons under 19 years of age was for highway safety. The greatest incidence of alcohol related driving accidents is in the 23-year-old age group, which is the least penalized class. The classification, therefore, is arbitrary. The statutes providing for revocation of driver’s licenses of persons under 19 years of age for possession of alcoholic beverages are unconstitutional because they are not a reasonable means to accomplish a valid public purpose; they do not operate equally, uniformly, and fairly; and they are arbitrary in classification and penalty.