Court Opinion

ID: 9575957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:18:56.105607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:04.703495
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The issue presented is whether the legislature intended to deny rights to a commercial driver which are available for other motorists.1 Wyoming law provides a limited special hardship privilege for an employed motorist after a driver’s license suspension. By a statutory interpretation, this decision denies appellant access to that opportunity following a non-job related conviction for a driving under the influence offense.
Conforming with the majority analysis, Robert E. Wilson, a licensed commercial truck driver, was convicted of driving under the influence during use of his private car in non-work activities. Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-233 (1989). Commercial driving and his existent qualification under federal and state statutes to operate commercial vehicles were not involved in the incident.
Wilson applied for a probationary work privilege for his non-commercial license so that disqualification would not be applied allowing him to continue under the hardship proviso in commercial trucking. He received the hardship exception from suspension, but accompanied with a decision that his right to commercially drive would not be benefitted by the remission of suspension. The result then achieved is that even though the driver can secure the probationary work privilege since his license to drive is subject to a suspension activity, he is disqualified by federal and state statutes from commercial vehicle operation.
I do not find any system of statutory construction, including plain meaning, Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Bd. of *97Equalization, 813 P.2d 214 (Wyo.1991), Urbigkit, C.J., specially concurring, that justifies the extensive judicial construction resulting in this interpretation. I am supported in this view by an equal protection concern and special legislation question. Wyo. Const. art. 3, § 27; Johnson v. Hearing Examiner, 838 P.2d 158 (Wyo.1992).
As an example to illustrate this discriminatory effect, four people attend a birthday function at a liquor establishment for a common friend. Those include a route salesman, a state employee who travels extensively, a beet hauler for a local farmer, and a commercial long-haul truck driver. If each, following the party, were to be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence, decisively different penalties would apply where the hardship proviso would be available to three but not to the fourth participant. Those three benefitted are subject to the ninety day suspension of Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-233 and § 31-7-128 (Supp.1992) since they drive regularly in work activities. If none of the three have a prior violation, they are afforded the opportunity to ask for the special work privilege of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105 (Supp.1992) and can consequently maintain employment.
Joe truck driver, however, has a worse problem. Even though he has the right to apply for the special hardship privilege of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105, his non-involved commercial vehicle operation authority is revoked and his access to continued employment is foreclosed during the suspension period with hardship remission.
I neither directly nor indirectly find persuasive evidence of legislative intent to create this higher exposure for this one class of worker when compared to all of the rest of the citizenry involved in the use of motor vehicles in work activities. Many spend an equivalent percentage of their work career in a vehicle as does a commercial truck driver. Fairness and equality would provide the same rehabilatory punishment upon the non-commercial drivers. None should be excused, but each should be subject to an identical penalty. The one class, commercial drivers, designated only because it requires both a state driver’s license for any vehicle operation and a commercial driving authority for their own particular occupation, is not by any observable legislative intent singled out for a resulting severity of penalty.
If we were to seek a fair and realistic plain meaning, another answer is available. I conclude that the granting of driving to work privilege of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105 applies equally to Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-104 (1989) since the privilege to drive is not suspended from work pursuits under the controlling st&tute. As to employment driving, the driver’s license is not suspended, revoked or canceled.
It should be clear from a plain meaning legislative interpretation or otherwise the legislature could have provided that the limited driving privilege of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(f) should never be applied to the commercial driver. In specific terms, the suspension for commercial driving denying the hardship remission privilege only results from an offense during commercial driving. See Wyo. Stat. § 31 — 7— 105(f)(iv)(F), § 31-17-111 (1989) and § 31-17-113 (1989). The majority, by its interpretation, takes the exclusion from availability of a hardship driving privilege (on the job conduct of Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-111, § 31-17-113), as provided in Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(f)(iv)(F), as a disqualification and extends the text by interpretation to the non-designated, non-included statutory provision found in Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-105 (1989). The issue is whether the legislature intended absolute liability without opportunity for probationary exception to extend beyond the commercial driving activities to the non-commercial, social driving activities if the license holder happens to require the commercial license qualification. I do not find that purpose clearly stated in the totality of the legislation involved here. Allied-Signal, Inc., 813 P.2d 214. The specificity of the statute does not provide room for this court’s constructive expansion.2
*98The source of the present Wyoming Uniform Commercial Driver License Act was congressional enactment of 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2701 through § 2716 (1990). See also 49 CFR 386 and 392.5 (1991). Neither litigant nor the majority opinion cite a single federal or other jurisdictional case which addresses the relationship of the commercial driver’s license statute to a non-commercial driving suspension penalty. See Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-101 through § 31-7-202 (1989 & Supp.1992), involving the Wyoming general driver’s license statute, and specifically the hardship driving provisions of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(f).
Careful examination of federal statutes and the CFR supplementation, in conjunction with the identically written Wyoming statutes to track federal law, reveal three events which deny the commercial driver a right to occupational pursuit. The first is the one at issue here. This is a commercial driver whose driver’s license is suspended, revoked or canceled under general state law where he may obtain a hardship work remission under , Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105. The second is a loss under state statute of the right to drive a commercial vehicle, Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-111, and the third is the general federal disqualification statute, 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2707.
Clearly, the first is driver’s license suspension or revocation and the last two are prohibitions against operating a commercial vehicle. 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2703; Wyo. Stat. § 31 — 17—103(b) (1989). It is just as clear that the prohibition against driving under the first event should extend no further than its limiting provisions exist for any driving, whether commercial, at work, or social.
The validity of this conclusion is demonstrated by the specific provisions of Wyoming statutes which include authority generally for the limited driving privilege (the hardship clause). Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(f). The introductory provision in the section applies its provisions not only to that general statute, Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-101 through § 31-7-202, but also to the disqualification concept provided by Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-111 and § 31-17-113. Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(d), which includes the requirement for a hearing “to receive limited driving privileges,” includes reference to the Commercial Driver’s License Act and then adds a further provision that as to disqualification under the federal-state law, no hardship privilege is granted. See Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-103(b); 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2702(b); and 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2703(1). The driver’s license suspension preclusion applies to the act of driving while, conversely, the federal-state law commercial driver’s statute applies to the right to operate a commercial vehicle or consequent disqualification.
This examination of the relevant statutes leads to an analysis that; (1) driver’s license suspensions or revocations are ameliorated by the hardship provision of Wyo. Stat. § 31-7-105(f); and (2) disqualification results only from commercial driving activities, 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2707; 49 CFR 383, subpart D, and 383.51; Wyo. Stat. § 31-17-111 and § 31-17-113.
The majority opinion legislates the result not contemplated by the federal or state language by finding that the hardship proviso in suspension is not only ineffective as to disqualification under the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act, but is also ineffective where loss of driving privilege for the commercial driver results from the general suspension of his driver’s license for any reason.3
*99I would accept as reliable the concept which fits within the structure of the statutes as initially recognized within the Attorney General’s communication. Furthermore, no precedent or administrative directives have since been provided by the litigants or found in opinion writing to tell this court of any single additional jurisdiction, including federal authorities and state licensing agencies, that has adopted the federal-state law statutory interpretation created by this majority decision.
I dissent.

. Wyoming’s Uniform Commercial Driver License Act also includes an exemption from any coverage for individuals involved in farm and ranch operations, operating fire fighting equipment or military personnel. Wyo. Stat. § 31— 17-106 (1989).

. Federal law provides for a twenty-four hour out-of-service penalty in cases where a commer*98cial driver, during work, is found to have consumed any alcoholic beverage during or within the previous four hours before driving started. 49 U.S.C.S. Appx. § 2707(d) (1990); 49 CFR 392.5 (1991).

. The only authoritative discussion provided within this record is found in correspondence where the Attorney General's office addresses an offered and later withdrawn settlement arrangement for the case accepting extension of the hardship proviso to commercial drivers. Unfortunately for appellant, the trial court ruled before the stipulated dismissal became final and the Attorney General's office then withdrew its stipulated agreement. The letter, addressed to the trial judge hearing the administrative review, stated in part:
This letter is to clarify the position of the Attorney General concerning the above cases. Prior to receiving your orders affirming the ruling of the hearing examiner, the State had *99agreed to have the above two cases, and two Park County cases involving the same issue, remanded to the hearing examiner to grant limited driving privileges to operate a commercial vehicle.
At the time the State agreed to stipulate, there were no judicial determinations on the issue, and the Department of Transportation considered the issue still open for administrative resolution. The State agreed to stipulate based on informal information, from the Federal Department of Transportation and from other states. The U.S. Department of Transportation issued informal opinions that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not prohibit states from granting limited driving privileges to operate a commercial vehicle if a driver receives a DWUI in a personal vehicle. Consequently, certain states grant limited driving privileges to operate a commercial vehicle so long as the underlying DWUI did not occur in a commercial vehicle. To provide uniform enforcement and consistent administration, it was decided that Wyoming would take a similar position.
Before the stipulations in the four pending appeals were fully implemented, we received your decision on the merits of the above two cases. The Office of the Attorney General has considered your decisions and is in full agreement with your ruling. It is the opinion of this office that the decisions are binding on the Department of Transportation. To achieve uniform enforcement of the judicial determinations, the State will request to withdraw its stipulations in the two appeals pending in Park County.