COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Richard Carroll NOEL, Appellee. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Keith Douglas Travis, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Sept. 22, 2004.
857 A.2d 1283
Argued March 3, 2004.
Daniel W. Davis, Sharpsville, for Richard Carroll Noel, Appellee.
Before: CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.
OPINION
Justice NIGRO.
In this appeal, we are asked to consider the constitutionality of Section 3103(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code (the “Code“), which provides:
Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this part, except those provisions of this part which by their very nature can have no application or where specifically provided otherwise.
On April 7, 2002, the Pennsylvania State Police stopped Appellees Richard Carroll Noel and Keith Douglas Travis while they were riding horses on a public highway in Springfield Township, Mercer County because they appeared to be intoxicated. Appellees were subsequently charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (“DUI“) pursuant to
On August 20, 2002, Appellee Travis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and Appelleе Noel filed the same on August 26, 2002. In their petitions, Appellees argued that, as horse riders, they were not subject to Pennsylvania‘s DUI statute because that statute applies only to persons operating a “vehicle.” See
The Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the Commonwealth‘s appeal to this Court pursuant to
As this appeal raises the constitutionality of a statute, our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. MacPherson, 561 Pa. 571, 752 A.2d 384, 388 (2000). It is well-established in this Commonwealth that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and will only be invalidated as unconstitutional if it “clearly, palpably, and plainly violates constitutional rights.” Id. Moreover, this Court has made clear that a criminal statute must give reasonable notice of the conduct which it proscribes to thosе who are subject to it. Commonwealth v. Barud, 545 Pa. 297, 681 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa. 1996). Statutes which are so vague that they fail to provide such notice violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Commonwealth v. Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. 1, 354 A.2d 244, 246 (1976). As this Court stated in Commonwealth v. Mayfield:
The terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.... [A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meаning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
574 Pa. 460, 832 A.2d 418, 422 (2003) (citations omitted).
Section 41-6-15 provides: “Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway is subject to this chapter, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.” This is a classic example of a criminal statute that is too vague in its prohibitions to survive a due process challenge. It is impossible for anyone to determine, even upon thoughtful reflection, which portions of the vehicle code the legislature thought should apply to animals and animal-drawn vehicles and which should not.
Id. (citing U.C.A. § 41-6-15 (1953)(amended 1987)). Justice Howe authored a concurring opinion in Blowers, which the trial court below quoted at length. In his concurring opinion, Justice Howe elaborated on the majority‘s conclusion that the Utah statute was unconstitutional,5 explaining:
In Section 41-6-15, the legislature has declared that every person riding an animal upon a roadway is subject to all the provisions of that chapter (the traffic code), “except those provisiоns which by their very nature can have no application.”
Chapter 6 of title 41 deals with a myriad of traffic rules and regulations. They include obeying traffic signs and signals; reporting accidents; prohibiting driving while intoxicated and reckless driving; speed restrictions; regulations applicable to driving on the right side of the road; turns and signals on starting, stopping, or turning, standing and parking; required equipment; and various miscellaneous rules.... [A]n arguable position might be taken for and against the application of many provisions of the trаffic code to persons riding animals upon the highway. Application in each instance may not always yield to our notions of common sense... For example, if, while on a highway a rider breaks his arm as a result of being thrown off an unruly horse, does section 41-6-34 require the rider to notify the police? Would the rider need to fill out an accident report form as required by 410-6-35? Could a law enforcement officer issue a citation to a rider whose horse makes an unusual noise as proscribed by section 41-6-147? Must hоrses be equipped with headlamps and taillights as arguably required by section 41-6-130-5(a)?
Blowers, 717 P.2d at 1324 (Howe, J., concurring).
This reasoning is equally applicable to Section 3103(a) which, much like the Utah statute, essentially provides that horse-riders will be subject to those provisions of Part III of the Code which “by their very nature” are deemed to apply to horse-riders. Within Part III of the Code, there are five chapters, each of which contains several subchapters. These subchapters set forth a myriad of rules concerning this Commonwealth‘s trаffic laws, the rights and duties of automobile owners, and serious criminal offenses involving motor vehicles. In total, there are over one hundred and twenty provisions contained in Part III that, according to Section 3103(a), may or may not apply to horse-riders like Appellees. While the Commonwealth argues that “nothing beyond logic and common sense is required to make the determination” as to whether or not a particular provision in Part III is applicable “by its very nature” to horse-riders, and that, indeed, thеre is no “statute in Part III which, after its reading, leaves any
For example, Section 3708, “Unauthorized driving over fire hose,” provides the following:
No vehicle shall be driven over any unprotected hose of a fire department when laid down on any highway, private road or driveway, for use at any fire or alarm of fire, without the consent of a fire department officer, a police officer or other appropriately attired person authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic at the scene.
The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident shall immediately by the quickest means of communication give notice to the nearest office of a duly authorized police department if the accident involves injury to or death of any person....
These examples demonstrate that it is entirely unclear which provisions in Part III apply “by their very nature” to persons riding an animal and which do not. Indeed, as Justice Howe opined in his concurring opinion in Blowers, an argument could be made both for and against the appliсation of these, and many other, provisions of Part III of the Code to
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion in which Justice NEWMAN joins.
Justice EAKIN files a dissenting opinion.
The majority concludes that Section 3103(a) of the Vehicle Code is unconstitutionally vague, and thus, declines to reach the question of whether that provision violates the non-delegation doctrine. Because I believe that Appellees’ vagueness challenge cannot be sustained on the present facts, I would invalidate Section 3103(a) on the sole basis that it impermissibly delegates a legislative function to the judiciary.
The prohibition against driving while intoxicated is clearly capable, by its nature, of application to individuals riding horses; Appellees do not dispute this. Hence, Appellees’ vagueness claim is faciаl, rather than “as-applied,” in nature. Notably, however, in cases that do not implicate First Amendment freedoms, this Court has rejected facial vagueness challenges where the defendant‘s conduct is clearly prohibited by the statute in question.1 See Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 574 Pa. 460, 467-68, 832 A.2d 418, 422 (2003); Commonwealth v. Cook, 468 Pa. 249, 253, 361 A.2d 274, 276-77 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hughes, 468 Pa. 502, 508, 364 A.2d 306, 309 (1976); Commonwealth v. Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. 1, 4, 354 A.2d 244, 245 (1976); see also United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 (1975) (“It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.“). This is because the vagueness doctrine stems from due process concerns, namely, that citizens must be given fаir warning of what conduct is prohibited. See Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. at 5, 354 A.2d at 246 (quoting Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). If a defendant‘s conduct was clearly prohibited by the challenged statute, he received fair warning even though there may doubts about the statute‘s applicability in other situations.2
On the merits of the constitutional issue, I agree with the majority that there are a number of aspects of the Vehicle Code which may or may not, by their nature, be capable of application to animals. These questions are best suited for the Legislature to resolve, as that body, by design, is able to solicit empirical information and is responsible to make policy
Justice NEWMAN joins this concurring opinion.
Justice EAKIN, dissenting.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, And no one can talk to a horse of course That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
Go right to the source and ask the horse He‘ll give you the answer that you‘ll endorse. He‘s always on a steady course. Talk to Mr. Ed.
Ray Evans and Jay Livingston, Mr. Ed, (CBS, 1961-1966).
Mr. Ed would know which sections of Part III do not “by their very nature” apply to his rider, and I attribute the equivalent horse sense to the ordinary reasonable person. Because I cannot agree § 3103(a) of the Vehicle Code is unconstitutionally vague, I offer my respectful dissent.
In order for a penal statute to be constitutionally firm, the offense must be defined with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 574 Pa. 460, 460, 832 A.2d 418, 422 (2003) (citations omitted). “Due process is satisfied if the statute provides reasonable standards by which a person may gauge his future conduct.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. 1, 354 A.2d 244, 246 (1976)).
Due process simply requires the statute in question to contain reasоnable standards to guide prospective conduct. Id. (citations omitted). The majority rides far afield, wondering whether an equestrian could be cited for driving the horse over a fire hose (§ 3708), or on a sidewalk (§ 3703), or whether § 3746 requires a person falling off a horse to notify police. The answer to the first two is “of course.” At a fire, the offense is not merely driving over hoses—it is driving over hoses without consent of the person regulating traffic. The statute involves regulating traffic away from the firefighting equipment, which makes eminent sense, and the offense is not “by its nature” inapplicable to drivers of animals. Likewise, one is no more allowed to endanger pedestrians by riding a horse on the sidewalk than one is allowed to drive one‘s car there, momentarily or otherwise. As for the third hypothetical, the situation remains one of common sense; any ambiguity in this section involves the word “accident,” not its application to equestrians. Whether falling from a horse or a car, if it is on the highway and comprises an accident which rеsults in injury, one must report; if there is no accident or injury, there is no need to report. The rationale for police involvement is no different just because the highway accident involved a horse.
Besides, appellant is charged with DUI, not a fire hose or sidewalk violation. “It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.” Heinbaugh, at 245 (citation omitted). It is not within the purview of this Court to adjudicate the rights of hypothetiсal individuals engaged in hypothetical conduct. Id. We could fashion imaginary fact situations until the livestock returns to the barn, but that is not proper constitutional analysis.
These are statutes “by their very nature” not applicable to animal drivers; interestingly, they are not by nature applicable to the driver of a car, either. It is the “rules of the roаd” that apply to the driver of the mustang and Mustang alike. Here, an ordinary person of common intelligence would know that riding a horse while intoxicated would be a violation of § 3731, just as the same person would recognize that the rider of a horse must stop at a stop sign, ride on the right side of the road, and signal before turning. See Mayfield, at 423 (statute sufficiently definite that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and is not so vague men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its aрplication).
A horse is a horse, of course, of course, but the Vehicle Code does not divorce its application from, perforce, a steed, as my colleagues said.
“It‘s not vague” I‘ll say until I‘m hoarse, and whether a car, a truck or horse this law applies with equal force, and I‘d reverse instead.
Because I cannot agree this statute is vague or ambiguous, I respectfully dissent.
Notes
(a) Offense defined.—A person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in any of the following circumstances:
(1) While under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving.
......
The Supreme Court shall have exсlusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in .... [m]atters where the court of common pleas has held invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, or to the Constitution of this Commonwealth, any treaty or law of the United States or any provision of the Constitution of, or of any statute of, this Commonwealth, or any provision of any home rule charter.