State v. Outzen
2017 UT 30
| Utah | 2017Background
- After falling asleep at the wheel and causing a two-car crash, Wyatt Outzen exhibited signs officers associated with recent marijuana use; field sobriety tests indicated he was not too impaired.
- Outzen told officers he last used marijuana the previous evening; his blood tested positive for the primary metabolite of marijuana.
- He was charged under Utah Code § 41-6a-517 for operating (or being in actual physical control of) a vehicle with a metabolite of a controlled substance in his body; entered guilty plea in justice court and appealed to district court.
- In district court Outzen moved to dismiss arguing § 41-6a-517 requires a showing of impairment and that the statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Utah’s uniform operation of laws provision; the court denied the motion.
- Outzen reserved his right to appeal the constitutional and statutory interpretation issues; this Court accepted jurisdiction and considered (1) statutory interpretation, (2) federal constitutional challenge (status-offense/Robinson), and (3) Utah constitutional uniform-operation challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Outzen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 41-6a-517 requires proof of impairment | Statute prohibits operating/being in control with any measurable controlled substance or metabolite; no impairment element is required | § 41-6a-517 references the DUI statute and thus must require impairment to avoid rendering that reference meaningless | Court: Plain language unambiguously criminalizes any measurable controlled substance or metabolite while operating or in actual physical control; no separate impairment element required |
| Whether § 41-6a-517 is a forbidden "status" offense under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Robinson v. California) | Statute criminalizes the act of driving with a measurable substance/metabolite in the body, not mere status | Outzen: Criminalizing presence of an inactive metabolite is tantamount to criminalizing status (like addiction) and thus unconstitutional | Court: Not a status offense—statute criminalizes the act of driving while the substance/metabolite is present; therefore Robinson does not invalidate the statute |
| Whether § 41-6a-517 violates Utah Constitution art. I, § 24 (uniform operation of laws) | Classification between those who legally/involuntarily ingest and those who illegally ingest is reasonable and serves legitimate objectives (public safety; deterrence) | Outzen: Creates disparate treatment of similarly situated drivers (those with metabolites) without rational basis | Court: Classification exists but persons are not similarly situated in context; under rational-basis review the classification reasonably furthers legitimate legislative aims and is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (status-of-addiction criminalization held cruel and unusual punishment)
- State v. Robinson, 254 P.3d 183 (Utah 2011) (distinguishing status offense from statute criminalizing having a measurable amount of a controlled substance while using/driving)
- Bagley v. Bagley, 387 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2016) (statutory interpretation principles; plain-language construction)
- State v. Burns, 4 P.3d 795 (Utah 2000) (statutory plain-meaning canon)