Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner's Office

Radosevich; JOHNSON; Paul Tamara Randy Hamp- Archibald; and

Jennifer (Petitioners), ton, Appellants Wyoming EXAMIN- HEARING

STATE of Rev- and the Division

ER’S OFFICE Taxation, Appellees (Respon-

enue

dents). McCARTY and Donald M.

Garrett Petitioners, King,

C. APPLEQUIST, Brown Charles

Marvin Freudenthal, III, Nancy in their capacities as Commissioners official Commission; Tax

the State rel., Wyoming, De- ex Taxation; partment of Revenue Healy, Jus-

and the Honorable Stuart S. Court, Municipal in and for

tice of Sheridan, Wyoming, City Re-

spondents. 90-297, 91-15.

Nos. Wyoming.

Supreme Court

Aug. 26, 1992.

Tony Lopez Lopez, S. of Zimmers and Laramie, Hawks, Christopher H. Stu- Intern, appellants in case No. 90- dent for and Kate M. Fox Anthony T. Wendtland Davis, Burgess, Carmichael & Cannon Union, Liberties and the American Civil Sheridan, petitioners in case No. 91-15. Gen., Joseph Meyer, Atty. Mary B. Guth- Gen., rie, Atty. and Milo M. Senior Asst. Vukelich, Gen., Atty. appellees Asst. respondents in 91-15. case No. 90-297 CARDINE, THOMAS, Before * GOLDEN, JJ., and URBIGKIT BROWN, Retired J.

URBIGKIT, Justice. review, our constitutional

For intended present cases municipal alcohol part to enforce state and nonconsumption provisions un- attempting majority, age nineteen. der provide consumption, statutes to deter retributory punishment driver’s via suspension the offense for where neither inflicted involves driving use. nor motor vehicle cases, appel- In these consolidated 31-7-126 lants claim that §§ * argument. at time of oral Chief Justice (license chibald), Randy Hampton (Hampton) 7—128(f)(1) (ii) (Supp.1990)1

31— statutes) following state claim: are unconstitutional equal protection 31-7-128(f)(i) because violate Wyoming Statute § [and] of the state and process provisions and due (ii) the unconstitutional because [are] constitutions, cruel and constitute federal dispropor- is excessive and represent consti- punishment, unusual imposed in similar tionate prohibited special legislation. tutionally and the statute discriminates cases age against Petitioners based on their nineteen appellants were less than The legis- special constitutes and the statute possession age of years of when convicted lation. alcohol, apparently un consumption of or restricting provisions city der ordinance (McCarty) McCarty and Donald Garrett non-public locations. possession use or following (King) raise issues: King the conviction municipal courts sent the (Cum.Supp. Do A. W.S. 31-7-126 Department of Revenue and records 1990) 31-7-128(f) (Cum.Supp. and W.S. pursuant (Department) Taxation 1990) Constitu- violate the United States Department then 31-7-126 and the Stat. § equal protec- by denying Appellants ninety for driver’s license suspended each tion of the laws? days by Wyo.Stat. 31-7- direction (Cum.Supp. Do 31-7-126 B. W.S. appeals, 128(f)(i) (ii). we ad 31-7-128(f) 1990) (Cum.Supp. and W.S. Wyoming license sus issues that dress 1990) Wyoming violate the Constitution consti pension provisions violate state equal protection by denying Appellants protec guarantees regarding equal tution’s of the laws? special legislation, process, due tion and (Cum.Supp. Do C. W.S. 31-7-126 punishment, and double cruel and unusual 1990) 31-7-128(f) (Cum.Supp. and W.S. support arguments, ap jeopardy. To their 1990) Appellants process due under deny claims, contend, among pellants other because the United States Constitution suspension statutes violate even the license they vague? are protec scrutiny equal test the minimum (Cum.Supp. D. W.S. 31-7-126 [Do] Wyo.Stat. and hold that agree tion. We 1990) 31-7-128(f) (CuimSupp. and W.S. (ii) 7—128(f)(i)and have 31-7-126 and §§ 31— 1990) Appellants process due under deny offending invalidity by for several bases Wyoming Constitution because guaranteed within state protections vague? are Wyoming Rights in the Bill included (Cum.Supp. E. Do 31-7-126 W.S. Wyoming ex rel. Constitution. 1990) 31-7-128(f) (Cum.Supp. and W.S. Consulting Engineers and Land Ass’n of 1990) pun- and unusual constitute cruel Sullivan, Surveyors (Wyo. 798 P.2d 826 Constitu- ishment Hoem v. (Wyo. 1990); 756 P.2d 780 tion? 1988). II. FACTS I. ISSUES (Johnson), Wyoming legislation separates Paul Radose- Tamara Johnson re- (Ar- people Wyoming groups into three (Radosevich), Jennifer Archibald vich any posses- violating regarding part: provides, in law Wyo.Stat. § 31-7-126 sion, delivery, use of con- manufacture or forward to this state shall also court in Each alcohol, [Department [Department trolled substance Taxation] of Revenue and (2) working days suspend the date of two from Taxation] of Revenue and shall within any conviction of operating privilege conviction a record for: license or nonresident (19) years age person conviction; under nineteen (i) (90) Ninety days the first any regarding law for a court violation months, (ii) (6) person has Six if the been delivery, or use possession, manufacture preceding previously convicted within the or alcohol. substance controlled (12) violating any law re- twelve months for 7—128(f)provides: Wyo.Stat. § 31— delivery, garding possession, manufacture receiving Upon a record of conviction substance or alcohol. or use of a controlled (19) years under nineteen who is driver suspended possession ing rights of alcohol if garding the use or convicted of The first violating any other controlled intoxicants. disassociated offense up persons is made group who involving law legalized either alcohol twenty-one years people old. These least drugs.3 7—128(f); illegal Wyo.Stat. § 31— ordinarily use may normally possess and 31-7-120(b) Wyo.Stat. (Supp.1991). legally {see, however, alcohol appeals These chronicle the na- current (Supp.1992), “Liability for sale 12-5-502 of the use tional examination of alcoholic child, ward or habitual drunkard when beverages by younger of our members given”), notice thereof written society as a factor constituent within this second “controlled substances.” country’s crisis of misuse intoxicants group up is made who are either persons perhaps above a minimal level of twenty years peo- or old. These nineteen continuing age twelve thereafter may not or other ple use either alcohol through age all groups, necessarily but not legally, if intoxicants controlled but for past age notable those of 100. illegal possession, of use or are convicted through pressure First addressed of not driver’s licenses.2 they will lose their age legal national was of up persons group The third is made who drinking by Wyoming which raised years They than too are less nineteen old. twenty-one following legislature age to or at may any legally, not use intoxicants funding loss by threatened of federal public place. Wyo.Stat. 12- not a least § 44, Wyo.Sess.Laws 1. en- ch. The 1990 6-101(b) § other (Supp.1992). Unlike the legislation, Wyo.Sess.Laws however, forcement any groups, member within 92, 1, category Wyo. his or her driv- amended will have vehicle ch. since § use, age public possession person consumption Since a of the of nineteen or older or in the 2. liquor private home or a circum- a and can alcoholic within ceremonial can own store serve law, parent. beverages Wyoming or even furnished state it is incor- stance when under present appellants say age "pos- None of the were convicted persons of this cannot rect to any regarding state beverages. might illegal of the violation of statute It to alcoholic sess" possession beverages. or of alcoholic Al- use though anyone possess publicly yourself, to but intent use with age (majori- twenty- over nineteen age to sell to someone above license, ty) liquor he can own a or she cannot Wyo.Stat. 12-4-103 12-6-101 §§ one. 12-6-101(a) Wyo.Stat. product However, §§ use the sold. (Supp.1992). for within 12-4-103(a)(vii). magnify complexi- and ties, To age group, conviction a combination second question when a further unanswered exists involving possession furnish and offense both a bond is within the statutes where a forfeited use motor can result in concurrent of a vehicle nonappearance is as a bond-out defined a driver’s license revocation and automobile driving for a offense. conviction Wyo.Stat. registration suspension. 12-6-102 § newspaper stories are illus- Two concurrent (Supp.1992). One Novello: Laws let teens trative. headlined Star-Tribune, 1991, 12, Casper Sept. get liquor, interesting array of offenses has an A2, stated: beverages. relating minors to alcoholic prevent from State laws intended to minors First, being possession or under the influence drinking loopholes” "riddled public highway public place is or on a included, road and easy teenagers buy and drink make it place, Wyo.Stat. private but if in a Surgeon beverages, Antonia alcoholic General 12-6-101(b), exception the inclu- with an § Wednesday. Novello said a) delivering employment; within sion of when mandated, 21-year-old federally mini- "The b) parent legal guardian; presence or largely age drinking myth,” is mum law c) serving years dispensing eighteen if or or surgeon general said[J age. article, Wyo It was further in the second stated street, highway public place Star-Tribune, is not Sept. What loopholes, Casper law has 12, 1991, statute there is no not defined in the "Consumption is minors is not at A2: * * * against prohibition under state law specifically illegal criminal 21 states: [includ- beverages parent furnishing according to his alcoholic ing] Wyoming[,]” to the nation- since However, Wyo. Surgeon one can. child. else and the press her General al releases of the Inspector 12-6-101. Office Stat. Health and Services Human ambiguities General, subject and com- serve with- The abounds minors sell and alcohol can however, trigger including supervision. P. plexities what is a law to See Michael out adult Rosenthal, offense, Drinking Age driving what The disassociated alcoholic Minimum Observation, conviction, city Young People: 92 Dick.L.Rev. render An and can the ordinance a illegal law, e.g., legal state non- under what suspension Department's 1 was another effort existent ch. Sess.Laws operating youth under the license or nonresident bring to our driver’s abstinence added.) nineteen, applied permit. (Emphasis age not to be mandato- ry suspension period automatic as ac- nineteen and those older than licensing agency tion of the administrative federally age minimum twen- mandated ninety days for the first convic- division ty-one.4 six tion and months for a second conviction statutory provisions for present preceding within the twelve months. Id. possession or use driver’s these minor Wyo.Sess.Laws provisions ch. became effec- are derived following legislature separate July 1990 and the two tive from acts provided legislative singular initiating law was session sessions. significant reaction. Filed amend or re- Sess.Laws ch. 92 and source pending. That statute was scind the law were S.F. S.F. S.F. litigation now S.F. S.F. Wyo.Sess.Laws ch. 233 S.F. S.F. amended S.J., Leg., (Wyo. Dig. to remove the car insur- 51st Gen.Sess. which was enacted 1991). The suspen- generically from the House impact ance cost factor bill provisions. 31-7- touched the same issue was an sion See bill, H.J., 118, Dig. 120(b). majority H.B. 51st (Wyo.1991). Leg., Gen.Sess. of these stat- The historical derivation present- Principal legislative provided by any is not record direction was ad- utes by sponsored by ly to this court. the dressed S.F. 160 state available Whether any County, Senator Tom Kinnison of Sheridan Legislative Office has docu- Service purpose of judicially Wyoming. could noticed The the bill was to mentation which coverage origin from within the presently disclosed as an state delete alcohol legislation. and leave controlled sub- or authoritative basis for the to subject found have stances the vehicle license sus- There are five states which provisions gen- pension provisions. same An amendment statutory tie-in the characteristics, to none are similar in added to the bill remove the effects on eral provide operational system availability for automobile insurance and cost. terms passed in Wyoming as is the the Senate a vote of revocation such found bill passed in twenty-three to seven and the statutes. forty-four twenty. with a vote of House provisions. Wyo. have dual The statutes The Governor vetoed the bill and an over- 31-7-108(b)(vii) pro- (Supp.1991) Stat. § by ride succeeded the Senate vote of age person under the vides that if a twenty-one to nine but failed in the House years any “has convicted nineteen been twenty-eight. thirty-six with a vote of regarding possession, delivery, offense ** 160, failure use with- With veto override of S.F. alcohol of* manufacture in the (12) joint they pulled pending S.F. 2 was out from preceding twelve months” by conference restructured the issuance or renewal of status and shall secure added.) (Emphasis 2 to license. Joint Conference Committee No. serve any driver’s First, 31-7-128(f) provides purposes. to affect its initial two years reporting time person age of nineteen increase the under regarding original court of an alcohol related con- “violating any law convicted and, days days from two to ten possession, delivery, manufacture or viction * * * second, by stage amendatory pro- late alcohol” shall result use of act, Title'23, repeals passed by Wyo- Congress if Section 158 1988 act which was legislature ming threat loss of the United States Code. funding grant highway other Wyo.Sess.Laws Overtly, federal 3.§ ch. if the provided, part: funds removed, aid federal threat to fund loss is hereafter Wyoming statutes of age All amendments minimum restriction use of alcohol- hereby repealed, and the this act made beverages immediately per- would return ic restored and reenacted statutes are age sons "under the of nineteen.” made were before amendments teenager Hampton November insulate fact of cess to —born carrier liability except from insurance were all Laramie residents premium knowledge, policy revocation Encampment, Wyo- who lived in Archibald S.J., Leg., Dig. of 51st Gen. escalation.5 ming, approximately rural community (Wyo.1991). at 37 Sess. per- 100 miles from Laramie. These four eighteen years were at least sons appeals, we consolidated Within these does common and the record not indicate a citizens, resi- young six consider possession/use caused Laramie, incident which their Wyoming. Sheridan dent mu- charges incidents and convictions in the Laramie documentation about Minimal provided by subsequent this rec- li- nicipal individuals court driver’s or the years McCarty, age eighteen then suspension penalty. Clearly, motor ord. cense months, age eighteen King, and eleven posses- use was not vehicle involved months, in a arrested and six were years Al- or use ordinance convictions. sion Sheri- private residence violation differ, each though the dates of conviction con- City prohibited which dan Ordinance following appearance the four mi- beverages by a sumption of alcoholic municipal court received court arrest, pled young men After two nor. suspension by driver’s followed for that offense. guilty and were sentenced Department required proof also au- years for the three to be individuals, of insurance other four Johnson— compa- by an S.R. 22 insurance Au- thenticated July Radosevich —born born May ny filing.6 Archibald —born gust suspen- Wyo.Sess. equally 126 which relates to issuance or of S.F. 2 into 1991 5. The enactment sion, interesting Chapter provisions facets. ch. 233 includes several 233 includes Laws bill, initially by sponsor- comparable when introduced The nature as is now non-issuance Committee, ship Joint served suspension. Consequently pro- Conference provided amending Wyo.Stat. simple purpose of Wyo.Stat. amelioratory provisions posed of reporting time to increase court 31-7-126 31-7-120, § apply only 31-7-128 31-9-401 and §§ days days. had two to ten Introduction from 7—128(f)suspension Wyo.Stat. § to 31— by public outcry court prompted been equivalent young provide not benefit to do two-day compli- system time created applicant person either or who is an initial 233, Chapter impossibility. As enacted as ance up may for renew- driver’s come whose Wyo. changed in to amend 2 was addition S.F. actually protection equal question is al. This by relating time to the notice Stat. 31-7-126 § appellants presented here since all of the 31-7-120; adding Wyo.Stat. § a subsection suspended and none licenses that were held (e) Wyo.Stat. creating a new subsection applicants. broad issues of initial The were 31-7-128, Wyo. providing exceptions in § regarding premi- concepts other constitutional (Supp.1991) minor con- for the Stat. 31-9-401 § policy or or cancella- increases limitations um possession/use offense as alcohol in victed of pres- by the insurance carrier are also tions reporting requirements un- an exclusion for Wyo.Sess. legislative passage of 1991 ented since 7—128(f). Wyo.Stat. would take the It § der 31— litiga- came of this Laws ch. 233 after the events compli- imagination of to find character wildest briefing during time occurred and tion had Const, 3, Wyo. 20: "No law § art. ance with did re- appeals. legislative effort for these bill, except shall passed by and no bill shall be however, issue, significant appellate move a through passage altered or amended on its be so major costs which addressed the insurance purpose.” change original its house as either suspended family of the economic effect on the purpose notice original increase the was to driver. court ultimate from the and the time non-permissive permissive and conduct detailed retroactively applied Apparently, amend- provid- agency and further administrative of an Wyo.Sess. by 1991 ment inserted into the statute statutory premium and cancella- limitation ed eliminate the was Laws ch. 233 intended automobile insurance restrictions difficulty initially created insurance cost post-license suspension action that policy as have meant for this would 1990 law. What companies. be taken insurance could the statu- is not clarified since these individuals Wyo. anomaly created 1991 Another ap- tory change effective while became statute in 1990 ch. 233. The basic Sess.Laws pending in Our reversal peals this court. were events for Wyo.Sess.Laws ch. 92 to two related any requirement the issue. to address eliminates 31-7-108, (1) original Wyo.Stat. application: § filing company minor; (2) is an insurance Wyo. The S.R. 22 of a license issuance provide documenting 7—128(f), its form commitment or revocation § Stat. 31— years liability coverage for three following as a carrier than the issuance. Other a license reasons, subject only limited to cancellation for reporting 31-7- time of extended rejected legislative redistricting which did ISSUES III. CONSTITUTIONAL county practica- lines “whenever not follow PRESENTED ble”). light examine state laws We first fed because Wyoming Constitution Equal Wyo- Protection Under A. questions are avoided eral constitutional ming Constitution legitimately possible, Employment where Equality all. v. Western Gas Wyoming Sec. Com’n. of life, right In liberty their inherent Processors, Ltd., (Wyo. 786 P.2d pursuit happiness, and the all mem- “may 1990), state constitutions and because equal. bers the human race are protective of individual liberties” more be Const, Wyo. added). art. 2 (emphasis protections. Cheyenne federal than the Equal political rights. Rogers, P.2d Airport Bd. v. equality enjoyment Since of nat- (Wyo.1985), appeal dismissed rights ural civil made sure 90 L.Ed.2d 647 106 S.Ct. political equality, through laws (Wyo. See Westmark political affecting rights this state No. County School Dist. Washakie 1984); privileges its shall citizens Herschler, (Wyo.), 606 P.2d 310 One v. race, color, sex, without distinction of Springs sub nom. Hot Coun cert. denied any circumstance or condition whatso- 1 v. ty District Number Washakie School incompeten- ever other than individual 1, District Number County School cy, duly unworthiness ascertained (1980); 824, 101 66 L.Ed.2d 28 U.S. S.Ct. competent jurisdiction. a court of Russell,

Nehring 76-77 Const, added). Brennan, Jr., (emphasis art. (Wyo.1978); J. William Indi the Protection Constitutions and “Equality, forthrightly pro which was 489, 491 Rights, 90 Harv.L.Rev. vidual Independence, claimed in the Declaration Wright, Commentary, (1977); Skelly J. original left out of the United States slavery State Courts: Praise pressure Constitution under the Confessions of Const.L.Q. Hastings Judge, Federal if not que stion[8], emphatically, re (1984); Shirley S. Abraham- Wyoming peatedly, set forth in the Consti son, Law and State Constitu Criminal Horan, Michael J. tution.” Emergence State Constitu Assessment, tions: A Constitution: Centennial Law, (1985).7 If 1141 tional 63 Tex.L.Rev. 13, (1991) 21 XXVI Land & Water L.Rev. Const, Wyoming omitted). state laws violate Constitu also (footnote See Wyo. tion, their rela 1, 3; 3, we need examine then art. 2 and art. 27. § §§ the federal constitution. tion to protection equal federal test of While the decision, re- making we are also appears designed protect this scrutiny strict principle quired apply the “fundamental against the distinctions race color interpretation Amendment, each that in the referred to Fifteenth constitutional Wyoming] against every protect equally clause within the test fails to [the for not specifically inserted a useful distinctions that are re- constitution has been Nelson, 997, purpose.” Day v. See 240 Neb. ferred in the Fifteenth Amendment. Cleburne, (1992) (involving City Living Tex. v. Cleburne 583, 485 585-86 N.W.2d forthcoming published premiums. book including principally nonpayment of Keiter has a (1/93 to be date) projected publication subject on the major results. A insurance cost increase Wyoming constitutional law. thoughtful comprehen- of the most 7. One analyses equal protection single state sively presented of use 8. The reference to in the Wyoming protection of indi- federal constitution is located the first section for constitution may paper rights provided presented of the Fourteenth Amendment. It that in a vidual by University Wyoming equal B. treatment of citizens was considered Professor Robert Civil, needing Keiter, value not enumeration. If Political self-evident on "Our Reflections so, may be located such value Religious Constitutional Law Liberties:” (Unenumerated Rights Century, Wyoming Bar Ninth Amendment Twentieth Late Clause). 13, 1991). (September Professor Convention

165 432, 3249, provided Center, 3254- tention can be to the factors in- 105 S.Ct. other in consideration 55, L.Ed.2d 313 On the volved of the constitution- 87 hand, requires ality of a state law the “minimum Constitution 826; affecting rights privileges scrutiny” Sullivan, test. See 798 P.2d laws race, color, 780; Hoem, 67; P.2d Nehring, be without distinction of 582 shall sex, any Supply or condition and Mountain Fuel v. Emer- or circumstance Co. 1351, son, P.2d (Wyo.1978). other than individual incom- 578 1354-55 whatsoever Const, 1, Wyo. 3. Russell petency. “[Nehring provide[s] art. v. a basis See § ] arguing equal protection review unambiguous Because constitu constitution, under the state at the even language is to be read “so that each tional level, scrutiny empowers traditional lowest part is phrase meaning or has and no word courts to scrutinize classification State, P.2d superfluous,” v. 751 Sanchez carefully than they more can under federal 1300, (Wyo.1988), particular pro Keiter, supra, doctrine.” XXI Land & Wa- other tections must be harmonized with 553. ter L.Rev. at The race-sex based dif- 1, protective language. art. Wyo. Const. analysis con- ferentiation used for federal protection for the of natural 3 also calls § application involving stitution a strict or 332, 342, Langley, Wyo. v. rights, State scrutiny heightened law which at- (1938), Wyo. art. 84 P.2d 767 Const. tempts to or distribute benefits burdens requires that this not construe court § race, color, sex, alienage, because equal rights to protection enumerated protection illegitimacy inadequate recognizable other deny disparage basic legislative on against discrimination based equal rights that relate to societal could any other characteristic other than individ- Gillette-Camp protection. Nulle See incompetency, plain as required ual Bd., 797 County Joint Powers Fire bell Const, meaning Wyo. art. § (Wyo.1990),protecting the P.2d under, family right to associate one’s to re While court continues alia, 1, 36; Wyo. Const. inter art. West who constitution quire that “one denies the Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d at 872 ern Gas ality a statute must that uncon establish right privacy located n. stitutionality,” rel. Baskin v. State ex Const, 36; Keiter, An B. art. Robert Div., P.2d Compensation Worker’s Inter Essay Wyoming on Constitutional 151,155 (Wyo.1986), properly we can exam & pretation, XXI Land Water L.Rev. kind now equal protection ine issues of the (1986). Applying rule of construc solely calendar presented based on State, P.2d Longfellow tion used long-advo consistency approach with the (Wyo.1990)and Gezzi The dominant cated Justice Stevens. art. (Wyo.1989),Wyo. Const. import former “mini value we now into our rights construed make the 36 is scrutiny” test is of an mum the relevance rather than in Article illustrative noted to a val group characteristic of a assumed Sager, G. exhaustive. See Lawrence public purpose. “In id Stevens’] [Justice Re Skepticism and Rights Process-Based lexicon, requirement equal protection the 417, 441-42 sponses, 56 N.Y.U.L.Rev. public purpose to a valid of relevance (1981). or that the characteristic or trait means singled identify group out Considering the to state constitution’s behavior ‘provide equal the call or burden must particular protection, legislative benefit call treating members of rights, justification notion that recognize basic and to [the ” Note, differently.’ il protections merely Jus particular are the two classes] Equal Jurispru lustrative, is Protection Wyoming Constitution tice Stevens’ the (1987) dence, legal 100 Harv.L.Rev. protect people against to construed added). Living robustly (emphasis does the See more than Cleburne discrimination 452-56, at Herschler, Center, at 105 S.Ct. constitution. See federal the Su It is his to Nehring, P.2d 67. 3261-62. “Since elevation and P.2d 310 Associate Justice understanding proper preme at- Court this that within first to the harm or burdens rejected the tradi We look Stevens has John Paul protec by legislation examine equal occasioned the multitiered method tional [of separate group subjected vision has to a has articulated a whether this been tion] Note, supra, 100 those protection.” tradition of disfavor. Unlike be- equal “City twenty-one 1146. The ages at Cle the of nineteen and Harv.L.Rev. tween Living demon years, group Center this lost burne Cleburne their driver’s approach payment how Justice Stevens' with strates licenses but were faced [Supreme] dangers of higher avoids the substantially premiums for substan- heightened scrutiny, implicit use of Court’s coverage. As tially reduced insurance ‘suspect’ categories proliferating without well, “politically eighteen those under are already complicated overcomplicating an powerless” deprived since (foot Id. at 1162 analytical structure.” right and thus to vote unable make omitted). degree of inde- age and who are the years than nineteen of one “revolves around illegal pendence possesses.” State possession/use of of each class convicted the who are less than argues or controlled substances. those alcohol detail, analysis deterrent. Realists know Although argued in closer re- added to inflicted the 9. frequent driving practical is more viola- enactments result force behind that the veals that driving license and without driver's presented here is to enforce non-use of tions of such as age significant drinking beverages by persons likely reduction in oc- under the of no alcoholic gather groups young people presence parents. of of their currences where unless in the nineteen presence adequate punish- and for the use of alcoholic jail are not deemed Fines ment; 3, therefore, beverages. supra. n. See driver's traditionally “subject have nineteen been evidence from which this court can infer that rules adults make them.” suspending relevance between the driv- circularity argu- from of er’s Aside this licenses of those less than nineteen ment, years those assumption age who have not those nineteen or suspended twenty their driver’s licenses purported improv- had to the purpose of “dependent” ing than all those highway safety more who are or deterring illegal possession or twenty conjec- nineteen is no more than use or of alcohol. Conjecture enough. ture. is not Just B. Operation General “any claim restriction of law that the Uniform Special Law and Pro- Legislation public to a in- bears reasonable relation hibited conjecture must terest rest not on but must substance,” something supported by be operation general Uniform law. 77, Nehring, P.2d at characteristic All general laws shall nature have group justify ascribed to the classifi- operation. a uniform conjec- must on more than cation also rest Const, Wyo. art. 34. § important understanding ture. It to the Special prohibited. and local laws equal protection not to confuse common- legislature shall pass local ly prejudices In shared with relevance. special any following laws in enu- light of decisions such as Korematsu cases, that is to say: [thirty- merated For States, United S.Ct. special categories]. six enumerated (1944), 89 L.Ed. which Americans general all other cases where a law can Japanese ancestry stripped were applicable special no made law shall homes, property, their forced from their be enacted. camps, in internment and concentrated Wyo. Const. art. 27. alert to American courts should be be avail- ques We are faced with a further assump- unfounded challenge able to both Wyoming a violation of the Consti unjustified prejudices. tions provided through tution intrusion How are the to dis- characteristics used art. Const. art. 34 and enunci tinguish people disparate for such treat- ating operation a uniform of the law struc ment relevant to the the chal- precluding special legislation ture and as a lenged purportedly laws intend serve? protection, respec Wyoming constitutional assumption if the those Even State’s tively. Essentially, challenged legisla independent than less less nineteen are special tion is that lacks rational or twenty those who are nineteen than persons age from nineteen differentiation court, accepted by this years old right to twenty who are also denied the show would still have to the rele- beverages constituting a simi use alcoholic to the characteristic restric- vance and, matter, lar class for that those requirement This that the tion. additional age use use their whose excessive makes believing justify must a basis record illegal. closely special legislation fits This distinguished group poses special that the in defin concepts within the we enunciated government’s legitimate inter- threat ing classifica impermissibility required by the is now United States est Hoem, tions found which were scrutiny minimum Supreme Court’s current test. to fail meet the constitutional Center, Living Cleburne test. See responsibili- serious ignore We do at 3258. Under this U.S. at S.Ct. determining court in constraint, longer ty upon no free state courts are vested legislature violates imagine any of facts could that a solemn act set Constitution; nor, converse- appear the statute constitutional. make escape responsibility for the appeals ly, can contain we The records except significant Wyoming, for use of which is alcohol to state a fact that It twenty-one voting, age eighteen) have and young people or of in 1992 enrolled number fifteen, age higher driving or seven- attending since sixteen education been institutions and (1989). (age Wyo.Stat. majority teen. 31-7-110 nineteen before achieve 168 Sullivan, judicial predated P.2d 826 and upon the which

primary obligation vested Hoem, Phillips our P.2d v. government included were ABC within branch Builders, Inc., (Wyo.1980); governmen- 611 P.2d 821 to all of office addressed oath Co., obey Drug and the Nation 396 P.2d 431 support, defend v. Giant tal officials to (Wyo.1964); and v. States and of Bulova Watch Co. Zale United Constitutions judiciary Jewelry Cheyenne, 371 P.2d 409 Wyoming. When the Co. the state (Wyo.1962). Similarly postured in responsibility to the constitu- constitu- its abandons Gray, directive, representative government application tional were Bell tional Kamps, (Wyo.1963); P.2d 924 Pirie a short and inevi- only continue within can (1951); Wyo. span. May 229 P.2d 927 and tably terminative time Within City Laramie, Wyo. 131 P.2d recognition, assume for discussion we constitutionality em- 300 outside the main- presumption of which Somewhere Hoem, legal inquiries, of these legislature, stream but certain- all acts of the braces ly interesting acknowledge regard- coun- one of most cases P.2d and legislation in ing coun- economic detail of text tervailing do exist within this views analysis, applies comprehensive Langley, a and relating to which try 332, 84 P.2d 767. denial'punishment Wyo. punitive license driver’s age join given under who regard requiring to an ordinance With society con- segments of our other Sunday, to close certain businesses on Na- beverages. sumption of alcoholic 431; tion, pricing P.2d fair trade en- forcement, Co., 371 P.2d Bulova Watch Following this court’s decision 409; negligent of limitations for statute persuasion perspective, we Hoem 821; construction, Phillips, prop- 611 P.2d noncompliance perceive with would er of cities and towns for classification specific limitations in several constitutional differential, May, 58 statutory purchas If minor who characteristics. 300; newspaper legal 131 P.2d size of driving privileges, the es uses is to lose 927; ad, Pirie, Wyo. vendor, co-violating liquor adult agent licensing insurance which excludes 12-6-101, similarly be should Wyo.Stat. § insurance, Bell, auto each to the loss of his driver’s license subjected all to be more should be considered sphere pres in the limited provided as is rights narrowly drawn than driver’s license furnish using a motor vehicle to ent law nineteen com- of someone (Supp. Wyo.Stat. 12-6-102 or deliver. pared person age another nineteen or 1992). The of a driver’s license for loss twenty cadged a may when both have drink distinguishably alcohol cannot use of be private party. illegal if for individuals differentiated nineteen and those between ages below overview, philosophic Justice Chief Likewise, “il twenty-one. nineteen in his perspective Blume con- outlined the 12-5- legal” pursuant sale application Langley sideration of case alleged, non-approval should where selling below cost relating of a statute similarly require driver’s essentially confirmed opinion opera if a buyer and seller uniform and, decision, split de- the statute requirement is of the constitutional stroyed efficacy its commercial illegal expose should provided. All acts Langley was not a application. criminal category of the same miscreants within. examina- special legislation constitutional punitive re kind of to the same offense tion, power police directly considered if sponsibility should not differentiate compare to can now limitations which we punished happens to be person to be legal- an automobile right the loss to use age. years of under nineteen private party at a ly of attendance because We thoroughly was consumed. would longstanding, where alcohol Wyoming ahas sweep gracious history do well recall the explicitly applied expressed and Justice spe- philosophy that Chief to enact serious legislative efforts rejection in 1938. law provided cases Blume basic legislation. three cial legislation Law 1-185. The now before us would Harvard Review That doc- ordinary more trine was in the of probably not cause than embodied Declaration anxiety, greater Rights Assembly of the French National or deserve consideration question, in in it is stated ordinary constitutional 1789 which that the end than in society it in which we of all union of men is the were not for times live, existing, now the un- conservation of their natural and inde- depression man, and in rights the French prevailing, rest now mass of social feasible of of which states that years, in the last few the won- Constitution legislative power cannot the fre- make going, der whither we are and infringe and queries drift- which interfere with quent whether courts are laws Idem, 12, rights. rendering ing merely the tide or are The Con- Social judg- reper- tract of Rousseaux had its their decisions with steadfast and discussing upon cussions its influence ment as their wont. Before all mod- herein, legal political it ern doctrine questions philoso- of and the direct involved well, phy Duguit and may though resulting principle in states that be even “the platitudes, rights to cast of seeming sovereignty of limited of statement historic hasty the individual is still dominant in French glance over basic law, and classical Idem influ- underlying facts constitutional doctrine.” 114. Its country should in principles during ence our own the 18th the fundamental analysis may in it; century writings to make noted govern also a brief be connection, contemporary. political in “The end of judicial utterances all associations,” give appraisal “Rights Paine in our own thereof. writes his (Conclusion 1) dissipate pres- perhaps That will uncertainties of Man” Part “is the doubts, wavering lending imprescrip- us self- ervation of the natural and man, rights rights and these certitude in the correctness of our deci- tible sion, security and, hope, liberty, property, affirm the faith and and resistance we oppression.” Liberty production our placed in us confidence hitherto exchange proclaimed was no less fellow-men. political liberty. The than “Wealth in Rights contained Bill of Smith, e.g. Nations” Adam wielded constitutions, own, including our various illustrate, influence. To enormous its root in the ideas of the has direct Paine, already Thomas in his work men- Renais- preceding centuries. Prior to the tioned, “government writes that is no prices freely of merchandise were sance necessary supply than to the few farther improper regulated. It was not deemed society to which and civilization are cases colonies, including do so in our even * * conveniently competent *. York, Jersey, Maryland and New New is, perfect the less occa- more civilization Hampshire New as late as the time government, has it sion because Law Re- the Revolution. Columbia affairs, regulate it its own more does With view note. the Renaissance * * gener- govern itself *. It is but few history. period began new human requires.” life Part that civilized al laws took Thoughts liberty and freedom theory naturally 1. That was accen- men, c. minds first possession of the of the existence and tuated reason religion, politics, then later the field of frontier, spir- development of our in the of economics. It came field engendered development has times it legal philosophy of the part of the such, present has, not lost all of influence and because its that each man natural, inher- being, of natural and time. doctrine he is human certain life, liberty rights property rights of which ent inherent and indefeasible In- should, right, announced Declaration government or has of New expo- dependence, in the constitutions him. One of chief deprive Rousseaux, Pennsylvania Hampshire, Virginia, nents of that doctrine was of Vermont eigh- the constitution writing Social in the in his Contract 1780, in 1777, in in 31 that of Massachusetts century. Duguit Leon teenth See depends What the Jersey 1784. Other con- nite. is reasonable that of New in the same vein. stitutions followed facts circumstances. AmJur. 1 of own consti- 1074; 239; 3 of Article our Section 19 R.C.L. 807. R.C.L. rights of man that, tution refers to natural thought prog- as civilization Paine’s provides 2 of same article and section the resses, regulate men more and more will life, rights to lib- that “in their inherent proved has their own affairs not itself happiness, all erty pursuit of mem- proceeded Altruism has not that correct. equal.” are bers of the human race History replete is with the wreck- far. that maintain man There are those who private It age of rules of law. would be rights; none has no natural can surprising, less than if it were other- society, except in and that whatever exist public in the field of law. As the wise has, he, rights accordingly, receives he increases, people as trade de- number society. may be the- from However that crowded, velops, as civic centers become rights recognized oretically, natural society complex, becomes more more part our constitution. doctrine problems more arise which must be land, and of the sec- positive of the law solved, and the freedom of movement 1 of constitution tion 6 of Article our must be and of action of individuals deprived provides person shall be that no equal rights for all. harmonized with life, liberty property without due or always easy That is not to do. Certain evidently re- process law. The article to help. rules have laid down been rights and inherent fers to the natural valid, may In order that a statute be mentioned, it and so becomes otherwise aim, be purpose, or end thereof must apparent, particularly of the his- view purview police scope or within outlined, that tory the framers above thereof; power, and in furtherance protec- meant that the the constitution adopted must means be reasonable important they, and that tion thereof arbitrary, appropriate not must be defined, loosely though should be accomplishment of the end for the unduly invaded. words, view; in other there must be 340-42, Wyo. at 767. Langley, 53 pur- connection between the substantial recognized then Justice Blume Chief provisions pose view and actual police as a limitation power could serve the law. rights, police but that the on constitutional 343-44, at 84 P.2d 767. Langley, unlimited in its effect power could rights pro- since due on those constitutional stated, com- The test he which still procedural. cess substantive and is both well-defined, appropriate and was: pletely abridges Nearly every law individual reasonably tends to further a statute [I]f or ex- of action to more less freedom object, fairly appropriate is a such one is nearly all instances when tent. purpose means for and reasonable rise, enacted, rise, gives may give it circumstances, all then such freedom on the a conflict between question of the law wisdom hand, power legisla- and the one remains, which, of the view on the other. The abridge ture to it legislative depart- the existence of judicial in its of the conflict is solution ment, it to left to determine. should be be, are, wheth- must nature. Courts Id. 767. 84 P.2d not, willingly or the ultimate arbiters er Langley was followed Bulova Watch is, partic- in a or not there as to whether Co., fair law where the trade case, an unwarranted invasion ular was found in violation mentioned. 11 guaranteed rights above offending required due Constitution as so- They have found that AmJur’ being beyond the process protection and lution, just possible un- only one —the followed police power of the state. Nation the standard der circumstances—in special legisla- 236; pure classification 11 Am. where 6 R.C.L. of reasonableness. operation analysis re- tion and non-uniform That is indefi- standard Jur. 1073-1074. distinguishing quired Sunday peculiarity the court to void the no sale some gives necessity rise to for the law as ordinance. designated A mere class. classifi- inescapable think conclusion [W]e legislation for cation the of with- permeated so with that the ordinance is regard necessity special out such unreasonable, capricious, dis- arbitrary, by the condemned constitu- oppressive provisions and criminatory, It tion. is not what a law that includes adopted that it stand. The means cannot it special, makes but what is excludes. in to be substance shown without * * * Hence, it means follows view, accomplishing legiti- the in end as a general that a it operates law because police power. mate of It is exercise the upon all a designated within It is class. directly Art. violative of 7§ special applies still if it to all within a pro- of this Constitution which appearing class without reason why it is vides: * * * apply generally not made to to all. “Absolute, arbitrary power over Hammer, As stated in ex rel. v. 42 lives, freemen liberty property 435, approved N.J.L. in City School republic, not even exists nowhere in a Hayes, 162 Ind. 203 N.E. [70 134] largest majority.” Swan, in McGarvey Wyo. [17 discriminations, guise under the P. “There must be substantial 697]: classification, are violative Art. having a distinction reference to the sub- Wyoming, which Constitution ject proposed legislation, matter provides: objects places between the or embraced general “All of a shall laws nature legislation, objects in such or operation.” have uniform a places marks excluded. The of distinc- of these circumstances we are Under all tion on the classification is found- court constrained to hold that trial such, things, in ed must the nature of be declaring ordi- did not err entire degree, will at as in some reasonable nance when tested constitu- invalid least, justify account for or the restric- safeguards. tional McQuillan, legislation.” tion of su- Nation, P.2d at 437. pra, determining “In Sec. states: general special, whether a law is or Bell, In P.2d this court excised court will look to its and neces- substance insurance the exclusion classes sary operation, as as its form and well being discriminatory and agents both statute, phraseology. effect and, arbitrary consequently, unconstitu- form, wording more its mere or or than excep- deleting By tional and void.11 must phraseology, determine its charac- tions, generalized the classifica- the court general, public, special ter as a or local application a constitutional tion and created brief, is, question law. In what licensing for the statute. Likewise nec- ordinary course events must cities, regard this court observed “ essarily operation its effect.” its be ap- and sufficient reason must ‘a sound 257-58, P.2d at 306. Wyo. at population, May, on pear classification based popu- arbitrary classification based on we ask what terminology May, In ” May, be lation cannot sustained.’ difference in alcoholic offense (quoting 131 P.2d at 306 who is not person applied should be 222; (Rev.Ed.) McQuillan, Corp. Mun. Sec. compared to the quite years old nineteen 711; citing 37 12 Am.Jur. 169 and AmJur. provide is to If the law is? person who law). variant case it equality, would be consistency some law, person why the who general necessary to constitute to consider order law, years old should nineteen special there must be is more than opposed to disturbance, example, would judicial legislation to A bar room 11. It be excessive would Wyoming penol- approach different status right apply to create a driver’s achieve far ogy a similar to use a motor vehicle was if loss of adult convicted license revocation for each punishment. prospective illegal drug be included for "related" offenses. either alcohol punished, as an adult same is true of the other offenses enu- similarly since be 6-205(b)(2). merated section person particularly know better should might in- college Moreover, if a function social used further method Pirie, Wyo. public also interest is not reasonable. volved. See requirement of have newspaper Keeping size off the roads drivers who publish involving vehic- compared x 12" x committed offenses not 11" 19" 18" ensuring not a les is reasonable means legal year like or one ad. One inch one are free of drivers who roads scope day legislation special may create operate unsafely illegally. To vehicles application. unconstitutional contrary, the means chosen are arbi- comparison inch in the since one follows trary, not the because offenses newspapers operative had an factor size of 6-205(b)(2) specified in section have no Wyo- application general to classes vehicles, connection to motor also (and probably ming newspapers published inclusion those because the offenses specific publisher). In oth- newspaper one is, arbitrary. no no others is That words, in- law was newspaper er the size why suggests leg- itself to reason as the discriminatory are the driv- as tended to be particular islature chose the offenses suspension statutes involved er’s license 6-205(b)(3) in section as enumerated [sic] appeals. involving opposed to other offenses not proper If function with age constitutes vehicle. special legislation concepts, we could reasons, hold the For these we that suspension equally consider driver’s challenged is an unreasonable provision support nonpayment or state fees for child arbitrary po- exercise of the State’s involving delinquency cases adults. and tax power in the lice violation of constitution- subject This considered Illinois was process and there- guarantee of due is al addressing driving revoca privilege court fore invalid. by a sex offense tion statute effectuated contends under the ra- State that Court, Supreme The Illinois conviction. test, we are not limited tional-basis recognizing strong presumption the while purpose the statement found constitutionality within the limited-ra must, may, statute and indeed consider review, found the tional basis standard any challenged conceivable basis for in process and was provision violated due Further, provision. argues, State recognized that the stat valid. That court fashion, as circular follows. a somewhat provision purpose any driver’s license ed duty is This court’s to construe acts of who have demon “is to ensure that drivers legislature so as to affirm their con- operate safely to they are unfit strated if stitutionality validity, that can be * * * People not to drive.” vehicles are allowed reasonably as- done. State Lindner, 127 Ill.2d 129 Ill.Dec. arguendo that a sex sumes revocation of (1989). The court 535 N.E.2d is to the offender’s license not related conceptu the standard which then stated operate to a vehicle. offender’s fitness ally our review for case: applicable to assumption, that if we determine Given public purpose only by reference Having interest statute’s identified necessarily purpose, will stake, next the stat- to its stated we we examine whether unconstitution- provision that the relationship a reasonable find ute bears follows, according to the It readily conclude that al. that interest. We not, that the statute noted, that we must determine as we have it does safety in order purposes other than has argue otherwise. Be- does not duty uphold its constitu- to fulfill our vehicle involved in cause a was tionality. way in the commission the offense convicted, argument unpersuasive. was revo- which defendant The State’s test, place, the rational-basis his license bears relation- In the first cation of one, standard of re- although a deferential ship, a reasonable much less ” “ (Math- view, one.’ ‘is not a toothless public interest we have identified. 181, 185, Castro, appropriateness application driv- ews v. De (1976), 431, 434, L.Ed.2d ing privilege suspension S.Ct. for offenses such quoted in v. Zimmerman Brush Logan unpaid support delinquency as child 422, 439, Co., 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. payment of state taxes and If fees. we (Blackmun, (1982), 71 L.Ed.2d going to use driver’s license as J., Second, up concurring).) duty our offenses, for disassociated constitutionality legislative hold right to society then the drive our be- qual always subject enactments is contingent upon comes conduct which has must if can that we do so ification nothing to do with the creation of a hazard is no our reasonably done. It less requirement highways on the legislation plain to strike down duty individual to have to a vehicle access Third, we ly the Constitution. violates productive order be a and main- citizen purpose of the stat ascertained have gainful employment. clearly tain The test considering only the stated ute evidenced from the court’s decision also the operation —but —safe recognition safety relationship had no a whole. to the additional created purposes if consider But even we suspension. infliction of a driver’s license by fails the statute identified quite properly That court also discerned The first pass constitutional muster. potential suspension that a driver’s license punish- is purpose identified the State hardly serve as a sex offense deter- would matter, a will preliminary ment. As we rent; here, stop unlikely as it would frater- after arguendo assume that revocation parties nity sorority private high not- punishment, constitutes conviction get-togethers private in homes. school withstanding have our decisions which li- summary suspension of a that held recognized countervailing It is that cur- is an a trial on the merits cense before in authority approving can found rent be punish- administrative function and a possession/use in con- some context minor * * * ment. driving privileges. viction revocations see, however, identify- how fail to We briefing, although in neither The case cited ing punishment as cures the statutory nor in strongest the closest infirmity. The revocation constitutional appellate application, is the intermediate license would then be of defendant’s Strunk, Pennsylvania in of Com. v. case offense, penalty for criminal additional Pa.Super. A.2d 1326 test would and the same rational-basis * opinion * * majority was not burdened rev- penalty of license apply. limitations on review constitutional with relationship of- no to the ocation bears require- special legislation and found Moreover, if is the punishment fense. punishment inflicted for ment that the arbitrary for the purpose, the statute is offense of criminal offense related earlier. There same reason we identified not find "that The court would conviction. choosing par- is no rational basis proscription penalty this violates 6-205(b)(2), as ticular offenses section punishment unusual involving against cruel and opposed other offenses vehicle, dispro- punishment rev- penalty grossly to receive that imposing a legislature may punish If the ocation. Id. underlying offense.” portionate revocation, nothing offenses with original). (emphasis 582 A.2d at 1332-33 imposing penalty it from prohibits relationship unproved assuming some violating any provision of the Crimi- highway drinking under between Code, plainly be nal a result that would relationship gave a fatalities, assumed this irrational. legislative enact- cogency the. reasonable 68-69, Lindner, 129 at 535 N.E.2d Ill.Dec. The double affirmation. justifying ment original). (emphasis at 833-34 the court avoided since was jeopardy issue as the license suspended concepts advanced It from those no inde- entered and the sentence relevance and within equal find Lindner we I penalty suspension, of license am hard- agency action was administrative pendent which, as- penalty to fathom a required. pressed appropriate severity, does suming the agree won the that the dissent We would function. not serve a similar With con- argument protective constitutional standard, I see no standard at all. as the logic concept cepts and task, Moreover, contrary to the ma- our incom- “unpersuasive, was as both decision ignore not to jority’s interpretation, dangerous as a matter plete on the law and Strunk, relationship offered express 582 A.2d precedent.” J., dissenting. The dissent would Popovich, hypothesize immediately legislature and “ relationship’ or nexus require a ‘rational A relationships. possible rational as the means so as not to the end and between the statute con- plain interpretation of en- particular means make selection of relationship the of- firms a as between penology.” arbitrary as a matter tirely underage possession of brewed fense of comment and also agree with that Id. We of, alia, beverages penalty and the inter thought expressed: the further privileges. operator’s penal system a our There exists within omitted). (footnote It fur- was Id. at fine or rationality such that a ther stated: gravity or moral re- should reflect the whether task must be to ascertain Our particular crime. proachability of a One wonder, so, relationship reached in an rightly why the arbi- might drinking sure, singled underage ignoring legislature trary out manner. To be penalty, truly “special” deserving of a relationship might rationality of the by ju- other offenses committed whereas degree problem a serious further to some vandalism, shoplifting, as veniles such But a co- juvenile with crime. without etc., conduct, loitering, receive disorderly limiting principle, doctrine herent * * * Indeed, if the penalty. a much different graver implications has much be- * * * juve- nature of focus is on the intractable judi- I yond the facts at bar. fear deterrence, of one’s then removal nile arbitrary penol- of cial tolerance of forms the much-needed de- might serve ogy thereby pav[ing] way and respect to each of function with terrent analogous laws. crimes, yet appears no ration- there these relationship” 3—The test of “rational crime, not the to afford one al reason ratio- by as defined the “deterrence” other, Perhaps separate treatment. logically solely to nale is not cabined is that when selection most troublesome underage drinking the offense of arbitrary, public, as penalty is of a offenses committed minors. Con- offender, is more as the individual well legislature desirous of deter- sider penal system as prone perceive the to- ring juvenile vandalism. Under not arbitrary punishing for offenses rationale, owing in- day’s and Moreover, the offense of committed. deterrence, juvenile nature of tractable already driving intoxicated com- while legislature might rationally consid- pre- significant mands a operator’s privileges er of deterrent sumably serves a considerable Thus, Following an indication effective deterrent. without as an function. underage drinking was reasoning, legislature might the crime like operation of a motor accompanied by the or disor- penalize public drunkenness vehicle, drinking is mere fact that loitering suspen- with derly conduct or driving in the abstract associated privileges. To be operator’s sion of supply requisite suffice to not will examples. sure, these are but few rationality. ra- the “deterrence” Troublesome with ^{[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]} tionale is that its limits are largely legislators, ingenuity of defined majority found Instantly, while relationship rationale by the test of supported by the not interest “deterrent”

175 (1971). component Although to A.2d 369 we do not the substantive elect generally equal protec follow the the Due Process Clause. tion/special legislation/due process/double (footnote included). Id. at 1334-35 cases, jeopardy concepts of those there authority used to validate driv The basic possession clear difference in use or suspension punishment for dis er’s license offense, controlled substance which in developed juvenile offenses associated illegal volves a substance conviction cases. controlled substance age, comparable to the use of alcohol Maricopa County, Ac Matter Juvenile proscribed appeals only which is JV-114428, No. 90, 160 Ariz. 770 P.2d society and circumstance and is our Smith, State v. (1989); legal customary.12 276 58 N.J. otherwise 394 sections, right general acceptance A casual in the cases that a Within these 12. freedom travel society drive this is not "funda- American must be included. logical appli- both By comparison mental” lacks economic parity reasoning, can be present real The automo- cation this world. made to the decisions of various courts address- country’s bile is the essence of this functional ing concept that automobile use totally society conduct as a also intrinsic guest society our fundamental within when aspiration to the behavior and of most Ameri- Silver, litigation through statute Silver v. 280 cans, place its to mention foundational (1929), U.S. 50 S.Ct. 74 L.Ed. 221 might economy. within the national sacrificed, Food Merlo, then 855, case v. 8 the seminal Brown Cal.3d Unfortu- but never automobile. (1973), Cal.Rptr. P.2d 212 nately, as found from number unlicensed Nehring, continued this court's decision in accidents, it is easier to drivers involved in suspend Annotation, Constitutionality See keep licenses than it is to unli- driver’s Statutes, Automobile and Aviation Guest driving. public censed from With little Comment, (1975). A.L.R.3d 532 See also transportation Wyoming, the motor vehicle Constitutionality Automobile Guest Statutes: closely usage into its is even more woven Roadmap Equal A to the Recent Protection Chal- society's operation. citizens’ conduct and (1975); lenges, 1975 B.Y.U.L.Rev. 99 Andrew right to drive use automobile Kull, Comment, The Law Basis Au- Common right Shapiro inevitably involves the to travel. Statutes, Guest tomobile (1976); 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 798 Thompson, S.Ct. constitutional revocation Guest, (1969); United L.Ed.2d 600 States court, Nehring, statute S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed.2d 239 P.2d 67. Williams, 55, 65, U.S. See also Zobel 457 (1982) public Although investigated the case service J., (Brennan, 72 L.Ed.2d 672 S.Ct. carriers, regulation common commission cited). concurring com- and cases therein quotation by Justice Blume an earlier Chief of driving potentiality is ponent in for harm of Virginia West case remains informative: clearly public interest result- inculcated with right upon a citizen to travel "The of liability dangerousness. ing from Foreseeable thereon, highway transport property and his damage justifies death with reoccurrence of and business, ordinary course of life and power responsibility police for exercised obviously radically and that of differs from legislation. We demean the exer- will not either highway place his of one who makes the busi- police power or the of the cise private gain, in the ness and uses it run- driving as both involve fundamental incident of stagecoach ning a or omnibus. The former of Auto- of life world. constituents modern citizen, right ordinary a is the usual and indispensable gener- driving, while and mobiles all, right spe- the latter is common to while society, ally a basic constitu- in this also achieve ”* * * cial, extraordinary. unusual regula- preemptive of for standards tional status Wyo Weaver v. Public Service Commission simple as a fact of life. 462, 476, 542, (1929) ming, Wyo. P. 40 278 546 present to travel constituent of A freedom 579, 576, Dickey, (quoting parte Ex 76 W.Va. 85 Zobel, society posited in accord with is 781, (1915)). S.E. 782 65, (Brennan, J., concur S.Ct. at 2315 102 right of the of citi The fact that the exercise deny ring). could be found to Variant reasons danger drive to other drivers zens to causes any arbitrary anyone right drive to under regulation may occur so that is where harm twenty-five, simi age, twenty-one or or over a appropriate a not make it less funda does age, sixty-five seventy, larly arbitrary but not practical right involved facts mental within only just nineteen who visit to those consequent inappropriate in the exercise with by proscribed party in a circumstance house Campbell danger possible harm. risk of recognize city a state constitu ordinance. We Cf. State, Revenue, Dept. Div. Motor Vehic intrinsically protected by v. right to travel tional See, les, 202, (1971). 1385 176 Colo. 491 P.2d emplaced in 1 of our constitution Article Wyo. Charnes, however, 1, 2, 1, 7, Heninger Colo. v. 200 equality; art. Const. art. Likewise, absolute, was no arbitrary 884 there power; art. inquiry people. focused deci rational classification rights reserved to the not enumerated 176 Day, v. statutes, Or.App. controlled sub- between

The difference State ex rel. Juvenile in the usage (1987); is found and alcohol stances P.2d 937 here, White, use of Dept. County Columbia v. where subclassification age improper equivalently is alcohol (1986), 225, 730 Or.App. P.2d 1279 which persons under only those twenty-one, but suspect analysis its decision to a confined addi- subject age of nineteen are through proscribed age class thirteen cases, drug In the punitive sanction. tional eigh to be seventeen —which turned out by suspect class of the a subclassification White Oregon teen decision. The age alone is not created. ambivalence subject discussion was confined to the case ages nineteen difference between of the disproportion classification and illegal equally twenty usage where is pari materia we concepts do not which by the twenty-one created age was not in resolution here. follow It is also enactments. controlled substance differently The Arkansas law require extended reference too obvious to State, Carney see phrased, 305 Ark. including an addi- recognize that even (1991), reach 808 S.W.2d 755 not would commencing punishment, with tional clearly con- application here because it is circa enactment, Jersey of the New date of the statutory fined to state violation the use controlled substances age, not or controlled offense and the under did alcohol substance both adults and, significant conversely, provides hardship difference disappear. for a Another since, by exists the Arizona exception. triggers application also both That law statutes, remained Jersey suspension New through the sentence of the part of order conjunctively function judicial entered the license the minor court bureau until sentence other as one with eighteen years age or twelve reaches ret- subsequently inflicted as additional months, period longer. whichever by action of an administrative ribution Arkansas review embraced agency.13 and did as cited classification not consider disproportion punish- authority the direction also decline to follow the We Oregon analysis ment for a disassociated offense.14 Similar demonstrated topic relevance is DWUI con An even more recent after a second sion Pierce, case, Ellis v. Dept. Revenue and found in another California in Moreno viction (1991), Taxation, Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d (Wyo.1989). involving the chemical test in refusal take operational difficulty with the initial 13. The Halper, conjunction United States Jersey equally law as encountered New 109 S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d 487 490 U.S. (1989) statute, required of which each jeopardy question. The Califor- double appeal changes next was session while suspen- that the court found driver’s license nia Jersey progress, illuminating. The New remedial was not for the sion Smith, actually decision, opinion of A.2d was compensatory Halper likewise discussed fairly written when law which is could not "be character- and furthermore time, Ellis, By retribution, in- longer existed. that amendments or ized as a deterrent either.” discretionary change provide to Cal.Rptr. cluded the at 95. 282 by sentencing recognized and elimina- generic decision court The court that the “ application. safety using Renovat- ‘provide persons first tion of offender for all was * * * by in imme- highways quickly suspending result the driv- ed statutes and bad cases which necessarily yield legislative change ing privilege shown do not of those who have diate safety by driving logical precedent. be with themselves to hazards the most of alcohol in their an excessive concentration ” bodies!,]’ statutory clearly solely (quoting stat- Although on id at 95 a California based 14. construction, ute), nor retribu- California Su- which was neither deterrent a decision of the tive, Court, provide protection public Department rather to Motor preme Mercer v. 745, public Vehicles, Cal.Rptr. safety by keeping drunk drivers off the 809 53 Cal.3d (1991), thought gathering evi- provided in facilitation informative roads P.2d 404 similarity suspend by comparison A recognizing could or dence. was found that the state attorney suspension or of an to submit to to the disbarment for failure revoke a driver’s license involving moral tur- testing of an ob- after conviction crime evidence chemical Driving moving pitude. court The concluded: of a vehicle. served violation attorney's trigger or does required application of the man- disbarment punishment in viola- implied constitute a second datory provisions of consent statute. not be appropriate- found for Utah and Colorado. done with the more statutes are (1992); adult, ly less, Code Ann. 78-3a-39.5 Colo. severe for Utah whose § 42-2-122(5)(a) (Supp.1991). society Rev.Stat. conduct creates the within which alcohol and avail- controlled substances are Fine Cruel and Un- C. Excessive able to and abused both the adult and Preclusion usual Punishment governmental the minor. Nations with the religious Bail; structure of totalitarianism and punishment. cruel and unusual appropriateness direction to define of indi- All be suffi- persons shall bailable conduct, Arabia, dem- vidual such Saudi sureties, except capital cient offenses prohibition enforced if onstrate that can be proof pre- or when the is evident universally applied sufficiently it is with a sumption great. Excessive bail shall not punishment leg severe of arm or required, imposed, nor excessive fines be —loss perhaps one’s head. punishment nor shall or unusual cruel be inflicted. duplicative Addressing sequential propor- Const, added). (emphasis Wyo. art. tionality, punishment have for the mi- we by judicial first action nor when enforced

Penal code to be humane. sequential punishment and a second enact- shall framed on penal code be legislature ed enforced principles of humane reformation completely supple- executive branch prevention. mentary totally different than the re- Wyo. Const. art. 15. if sponsibility the individual involved is persuaded are also that We nineteen older. punishment inflicted double character Appellants thoughtfully address this con- upon category sequentially this limited stitutional violation: persons under nineteen fails initial pun- disproportionate This harsh and compliance with the first restriction ad Const, ishment, even when considered with art. 1 and also dressed legislature, Eighth due the cannot deference impermissible under Solem proportionality.15 scrutiny. Amendment limitation on constitutional withstand Helm, 103 S.Ct. Oakley v. 463 U.S. v. 715 P.2d 1374 Solem court (1983). Eighth L.Ed.2d 637 (Wyo.1986), stated Amend- proportionality analysis applied by ment philosophers of the law Overtly for those Helm, Supreme Court Solem the motto “do who have decided 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. others, yourself,” it to but do do unto (1983) as follows: way bring prohibi- is a far easier there analy- sum, proportionality a court’s segment society back to this our Eighth Amendment sis under the restriction would be to enforce criteria, guided by objective everyone, including This could should be adults. on may pressure Jeopardy We are aware of the severe Clause because tion of the Double applied proportionality by generis, recent proceeding "sui nei have been Bar the State (Fitz Supreme Court. of the United States nor in character.” decisions ther civil criminal — -, 327, 332, See, Bar, e.g., Michigan, U.S. Harmelin v. State 34 Cal.3d simmons (1983), emphasis Howev- 111 S.Ct. 115 L.Ed.2d 836 Cal.Rptr. P.2d 700 Bar, er, proportionality quoting character of original, it clear Yokozeki 436, 447, impera- Cal.Rptr. remains as a constitutional Cal.3d regard postures (1974).) purpose for the variant is because the tive without This 858 punish, adopted by States suspension of the United is not to members disbarment or case, lawyers. Supreme this public Court in Harmelin. In protect from unfit but to gravity severity punishment and of the of’ but neverthe is "reminiscent That imposition for the process. second course of societal the criminal less distinct from Ellis, reasoned rela- Cal.Rptr. at "minor miscreant” evidences tionship 95. immediately processes concept suspension the attained difference applied (For current safety person after a becomes nineteen. of the driver and relate conduct should law, see punish- to state of Harmelin public as a disassociated reconsideration and not Bartlett, Ariz. 830 P.2d 823 of misconduct is character ment for another (1992)). clearly applicable to this case. (i) including gravity process, equal offense meet the of due pro criteria (ii) the penalty; and the harshness and prevention tection the reformation and imposed on crimi- the sentences other Wyo. criteria of art. Const. and 15. §§ (iii) jurisdiction; nals in the same and State, Wright (Wyo.1985); 707 P.2d for imposed commission the sentences Wright (Wyo.1983). 670 P.2d 1090 jurisdic- the same crime other Bartlett, also See State v. 830 P.2d 823 tions. (Ariz.1992). at Oakley, (quoting 715 P.2d 1376-77 Jeopardy D. Double Solem, at 103 S.Ct. Self-incrimination; jeopardy. 3010). person compelled No testify shall be penalty harshness of the far ex- against any case, criminal himself nor gravity of the offense in this ceeds case; any put twice person jeopar- of that is shall evidence found penalty upon comparison dy visited the same for offense. lighter those under nineteen and the far Const, (emphasis added). art. § penalty twenty year nineteen provide a Other states somewhat same olds receive for the offense. A comparable achieved result as that these for violation the Sheridan however, they do so Wyoming with cases— City is com- Ordinance considered statutory significantly in a different frame to the offense mensurate for nineteen part, work. For the most other olds, twenty year preamble but a states16 threat of driver’s li include the if if the offender is under nineteen. Yet suspension discretionary cense as a penalty twenty year for nineteen and judicially-imposed penalty for a minor in appropriate gravity olds possession offense. offense, penalty then the for those under proportion. is far out of present Wyoming nineteen In under the contrast structure, ends judicial involvement implicit dispropor- The difficult issues sentencing city ordinance or after state sentencing faced court in tionate misdemeanor violation under the alcohol recogni- the Wright cases demonstrate a suspension control Driver’s license code. constitutionally sentencing should imposed by then explicitly pur- administrative action make sense within societal re- 31-7-128(f) retributory suant to sponsibility and for infliction to as an add- § Pennsylvania statutory process, years age provides Pa. 16. The an alternative in the (Purdon Supp.1991), judicial sentencing Cons.Stat.Ann. 6310.4 of first conviction—either judicial recognizes function in assessment twenty-four public hours of service three provides sequential penalty a series suspension. months suspensions to be entered as a 5-64-710, for Ark.Code §§ Ann. 5-65-116 and 27- interesting by judicial It is action. offense (Michie Supp.1991) provide 16-914 a license Pennsylvania the initial act included note that an suspension age eigh- for under the premium provision similar insurance teen and relate to court action as an order of provided in current law. what is now hardship excep- privileges including denial of premiums, shall not increase im- An insurer Carney, tion. deterrence 808 S.W.2d pose any surcharge penalty, or rate or make principle applied by was the the court in au- assignment point any record for auto- driver thenticating the relevant statute. insurance, an nor shall insurer cancel mobile (under Oregon age age state seventeen law is to renew an automobile insurance or refuse 1279) White, eighteen, see policy account of a under this on violation, crime, adaptation any infraction section. possession, involving or other use or offense Strunk, A.2d 1326. Id. See process abuse of enforcement alcohol within the statute, Code Utah Ann. 78-3a- The Utah by the court of con- violation order issued (1992) provision), similarly (juvenile code 39.5 provides Day, viction. ch. See 1985 Or.Laws judicial action as sentence for White, P.2d 1279. provides 937 and possession violation reasonably comparable In all younger eighteen years. than states with limitation law research, additionally permissive right provides a statutes found in the revo- which were (on judicial suspend judicial discretion whether cation action results in involves offense). sentencing part first the as order. authentication 42-2-122(5)(a) (Supp.1991) Colo.Rev.Stat. applies the law to under seventeen

179 448-49, 109 previous the conviction. Id. at S.Ct. at 1901-02. Clear- punishment ed approach directly ly, possession/use raises the double the in That basis of the minor punishment confinement U.S. jeopardy driven was deterrent Const, I, Wyo.Const. art. concepts amend. V legislative in en- retribution concept generally comes here 11. This It certainly actment. not intended to litigants apparently the not briefed in repaying injured be remedial an victim. in legislature the enact- not considered Wyoming, proceedings In to sus ment. pend or driver’s license are civil revoke question directly is not novel since criminal nature. v. and not Moreno Supreme by the States addressed United Taxation, State, Dept. Revenue and 775 Halper, Court United States State, Dept. (Wyo.1989); P.2d 497 Reve 1892, (1989). 487 109 104 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Hull, 751 nue and Taxation Halper, In Justice Blackmun addressed Here, proceed those civil (Wyo.1988). circumstances a civil issue “under what provide ings sequentially applied may ‘punishment’ for constitute punishment. additional That result re jeopardy analysis.” purposes of double Furthermore, jected for this by Halper. 436, 109 analysis In Id. at 1895. at S.Ct. purpose, legislature did not establish by the the three distinct abuses addressed offense; only it created the the criminal Clause, Jeopardy the third —multi Double by enunciating punishment. crime ple punishments for the same offense—was Co., Wyo. State v. A.H. Read Halper. Justice Blackmun rec at issue pres In P. 208 cases immediate protections— ognized third of these “[t]he ented, city the crime council creates deep the one at issue here—has roots administrative agency, as a state and the Id. at history jurisprudence.” our subsequent punishment, applies the deter recognized this to be at 1897. He S.Ct. beyond authority rent which would be a settled issue American constitutional municipality separately inflict. Halper, the defendant had been law. charged in state statutes are Nowhere convicted, jail term judicially punished by specific appellants de activities of these $5,000.00. question The further and fined legislatively clared to be violation civil liabili a False Claims Act was whether punishment criminal This enacted offense. $130,000.00 The in ty could be added. been only applied after the individual has quiry was addressed: city ordinance. sentenced for violation of turn, finally, to unresolved We statutory magni system Consequently, this in our implicit cases: whether question fies the assessed otherwise civil under what circumstances city introduction available court punishment for constitute penalty may for fur agency of the state administrative Jeopardy of the Double ther sanction. State rel. Motor Vehicle ex Clause. Holtz, (Wyo.1983). Div. v. 674 P.2d 732 The court at 1900. Id. at 109 S.Ct. “ to mean ‘A constitution is not to be made assessment of that the labels determined at some thing another one at one time and paramount “civil” was not “criminal” or circumstances subsequent time when at 1901. 109 S.Ct. importance. Id. make a may perhaps changed have so as Rather, whether inquiry addressed ” Rasmus different rule seem desirable.’ punitive as well as had proceedings civil 131-32, P. Baker, Wyo. sen goals. remedial Cooley’s Const. (1897) (quoting Double under the therefore hold that We Lim., 54). who al- Jeopardy Clause a defendant reveal indexing resources Current in a criminal punished ready has been analysis of provides one case which Halper subjected to an may not be prosecution In Ellis v. cases. some relevance to to the extent that sanction civil additional Cal.Rptr. Pierce, Cal.App.3d fairly may not second sanction (1991), raised where Halper was remedial, only as a characterized driving convicted driver was retribution. deterrent 180 subjected punishment to the suspension.

influence and then effects —license a of a refusal to take blood-alcohol test. sequence punitive second result mi duality found that The California court possession/use nor in or direct conviction suspension result was not deterrent post-sentencing agency administrative ac rather considered to be sui retribution, provide punishment. tion to successive We generis in the character of disbarment of punishment find this result where the attorney after conviction for a crime not determined and entered the court to involving turpitude by providing moral prohibition jeopardy invade the of double public keeping protection to the an unfit 1, also, under Const. art. 11 and lawyer practicing law. The relevance from although this decision is made under state the connection of of this case is refusal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United proof take the test and circumstances Halper, States Constitution under 490 U.S. involving driving involved in an offense 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892. See likewise the ex However, since no influence. punishment tension to a disassociated driving present offense is involved citizenship deterrent where a loss of appeals, comparability factor cannot be as a totally involved case that is not unlike analogous jeopardy found. An double city punishment signifi the lesser and the first, analysis is found where a civil fine is here, cant state-inflicted deterrent involved assessed and is then followed criminal Dulles, Trop v. 86, 590, 2 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. contempt. proceedings pu- Since both were (1958).17 L.Ed.2d 630 nitive, separate punish- assessment of Small v. jeopardy. ment violated double IV. CONCLUSION Com., 314, (1990). Va.App. 12 398 S.E.2d 98 passed Few enactments in current statutory system, Within the time judicial sentencing Wyoming legislature directly there is no action or affect involved in these suspen- discretion minor/alcohol more than driver’s license applies part conviction cases which sion as a tie-in for violation of author, 1586, recognition (1971) (regulation 17. The Chief Justice S.Ct. driving 29 L.Ed.2d 90 Warren, activities). cogent Comparable Trop Earl remains here. are other activi- encompassing regu- ties such as those control or Courts must not consider the wisdom of stat- appro- lation which are found to address a more priately being utes but neither can sanction as policy power identified exercise in Vil- merely unwise that which the Constitution lage Flipside, Estates v. of Hoffman Hoffman forbids. Estates, Inc., 489, 1186, 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. We are oath-bound to defend the Constitu- (1982) (sale drug paraphernalia); L.Ed.2d 362 obligation requires congres- tion. This require Jaycees organization or that to ad- judged by sional enactments be the standards membership, mit women to Roberts v. United Judiciary of the Constitution. The has the 609, 3244, Jaycees, States 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. duty implementing the constitutional safe- (1984). L.Ed.2d 462 guards protect rights. individual When Conversely, drinking private par- alcohol at away the Government acts to take the funda- ty illegal presents which is not under state law right citizenship, safeguards mental greater similarity preclusive ordinance spe- the Constitution should be examined with requires persons who “loiter or wander” diligence. cial provide reliable’” identifica- “‘credible and provisions of the Constitution are not upon police demand. officer Kolender adages time-worn or hollow shibboleths. Lawson, 352, 353, 1855, 1856, S.Ct. 461 U.S. vital, They living principles that authorize Ohio, (1983) (quoting Terry 75 L.Ed.2d 903 governmental powers and limit in our Nation. 1868, 1, (1968)). U.S. S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 889 government. They are the rules of Although this last case was determined on a 103, Trop, 356 U.S. at 78 S.Ct. at 599. We vagueness, similarity we find a in out- basis of typical not extend the should driver’s license police power reach of control and disassociated analysis Kolender, to these cases since no driv- opportunity. enforcement 461 U.S. ing 352, or vehicular use offense is involved. Cases similarly 103 S.Ct. 1855. See within a right ap- ordinance, drive which address the could be vagrancy Papa- discussion of a town plied anyone equally. Mackey Jacksonville, City See christou v. 405 U.S. Montrym, (1972); 443 U.S. 99 S.Ct. S.Ct. 31 L.Ed.2d 110 and assessed Love, (1979) charge acquittal, L.Ed.2d 321 and Dixon v. 431 U.S. costs on criminal Giaccio v. (1977) Pa., 97 S.Ct. L.E.2d 172 to be 382 U.S. 86 S.Ct. Burson, compared with Bell v. L.Ed.2d 447 protection preclusion provision of the law in or state law the State city ordinance a 1, 34, Wyo. Art. I of alcoholic constitution. Const. possession the use or against join opinion in it the court insofar as age a under the beverages by person so holds. determining that the centrali- nineteen. provided protections ty penumbra of and Beyond holding, opinion of that Constitution, precluding

by the juris- far in ranging philosophy, court is too special legislation and both enactment prudence, legal I and theories. cannot sub- jeopardy guaran- creation of double while concepts incorpo- to all of and scribe dicta appro- equal protection fair and teeing and therein, consequently join rated and I pre- for and priate sentences declaring in the result reached of the stat- offenses, of criminal extend a vention utes unconstitutional. suspension, motor vehicle driver’s CARDINE, 31-7-128(f) Justice, specially concurring. and the we declare provisions Wyo. statutory associated part I the result and in that concur Wyo- in violation of the Stat. 31-7-126 opinion holding 31-7- the court’s that W.S. ming Constitution. 31-7-128(f) (Cum. (Cum.Supp.1990) and Supp.1990) equal protection violate the and questions advanced The certified process due clauses found the Four- 91-15, McCarty King, No. are and Docket Amendment to the United States teenth consequently answered: and 2 and 6 of the Constitution Art. §§ 81-7- a. Do 31-7-126 and W.S. W.S. Wyoming Constitution. 128(f) equal protec- deprive Plaintiffs process in violation of the tion or due agree do Hoem v. I Wyoming Constitution? (Wyo.1988), “completely P.2d 780 consis analysis in tent” with Justice Stevens’ Cle YES. ANSWER: Center, 473 Living U.S. burne Cleburne W.S. 81-7- Do 31-7-126 and b. W.S. 3249, 3260, 432, 451, 105 87 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 128(f) equal protec- deprive Plaintiffs (1985)(Stevens, J., concurring), or that process in violation of due authority it for the decision this case. United States Constitution? so, If I have affirmed. it were would NOT ANSWERED. ANSWER: statutory no criminal activi Hoem involved 81-7- Do 31-7-126 and W.S. c. W.S. revocation, ty, pen enhanced no license 128(f) punish- inflict cruel unusual law, alty for of a criminal violation upon Plaintiffs in violation of ment on reasonable classification based Wyoming Constitution? legisla case in which alone. Hoem was a YES. ANSWER: perceived tion was enacted deal with suspension decisions of The license negligence problem serious the medical appeal from which Hearing Examiner Chief adopted had valid area. The statutes Radosevich, Johnson, regarding is taken accom purpose; adopted means 90- Hampton, Docket No. Archibald reasonable; and plishing purpose reversed. between connection there was substantial of the stat provisions the adminis- are remanded to The cases panel. No creating utes medical review agency proceeding further trative imposed. lost, no real rights were questions a herewith. Certified compliance had held constitution Similar been statutes 91-15 are answered of Docket No. and c 22). Three (more than al by other states and the license the affirmative unconsti statutes held dissimilar states had 90-297 are re- in Docket No. decisions (Car Hoem, 756 P.2d at tutional. See remanded. versed and dine, J., dissenting). Justice, THOMAS, concurring specially. Act was not Review Panel The Medical bring- procedure established statutory challenged unlike agree I Title under harassment suit ing a sexual abrogated as unconstitu- must be scheme Rights Before Act of 1964. equal VII of the Civil of our requirements tional filed, charge ly, uniformly, must filed with the fairly; suit is are arbi- trary in Equal Employment Opportunity penalty. Commis- classification and investigate, sion which has six months to BROWN, (Retired), dissenting. Justice attempt to resolve the con- conciliate majority opinion carefully The is simply create flict. The Act did not a con- skillfully opinion crafted. If the de- were stitutionally objectionable scheme such as veloped in a vacuum as an academic exer- the one we address here. cise, join I could same. Now, at hand. The driver’s to the case Declaring Wyo.Stat. (Supp. 31-7-126 § (minors appellants licenses of under the 1990) 31-7-128(f) Wyo.Stat. (Supp. they age years) of 19 were revoked because 1990) unconstitutional will result more possessed beverages. It is a vio- alcoholic people age twenty-one under the who minor under lation of 12-6-101 for a W.S. driving have a love affair with alcohol on years possess to alcoholic age of 19 highways. the roads and Increased drunk- beverages (subject employment an or to driving en will result more fatalities and working exception). It is a violation injuries. Declaring Wyo.Stat. 31-7-126 age for a minor under the W.S. 12-6-101 31-7-128(f) unconstitution- beverages years possess to alcoholic waiting al will be a boon to those on a list (subject employment working ex- to an however, organ transplant; ap- for an for person ception). It is lawful for a over the friends, pellants, pyrrh- relatives and it is a years possess age of to an alcoholic victory. ic beverage. article, Rosenthal, In an The Minimum (a) age person years A under the of 19 Drinking Age Young People, 92 Dick. possesses beverage may alcoholic who an (1987-88) (footnotes L.Rev. 654-60 $750, be fined sentenced to six months omitted), sobering statistics are set out: county jail, and his driver’s license is great majority soundly-de- [T]he revoked. signed raising studies found that (b) person age years A of 19 over drinking age decreased fatal accidents. years possesses and under who years ized and the least The classes are ty All are divided driver’s licenses of who subject (c) alcoholic sentenced to six months in age argument persons age A and one was for possesses person difference to no fine or beverage may who day. highway safety. over the engage in into three an alcoholic separated between the revocation of the penalized Yet we were informed age this same activi- the most under 19 classifications. fined class is two beverage county jail. at all. age $750 great- penal- years years only. percent drivers tion, related traffic deaths are the number one killer of fifteen to The effect of caused is even drunken accidents account for more than one-half The number of accidents they ^[*] sixteen- 45,000 stronger represent of all account for driving ^[*] traffic accidents each deaths mixing driving teenage deaths. on the ^[*] twenty percent of li- twenty-four-year twenty-four-year quite high. approximately fifty the United States young. ^[*] and alcohol ^[*] involving Alcohol- In addi- These year. olds, ^[*] old driving of alcohol related acci- est incidence censed drivers the United States and age group, 23-year-old is in the dents percent twenty less than of total miles penalized class. The driven, which is the least yet they forty-two account for classification, therefore, arbitrary. percent of all fatal alcohol-related acci- providing Further, for revocation of driv- statutes dents. because of drunken years persons under 19 driving, expectancy teenagers er’s licenses of the life beverages age possession of alcoholic for the last has remained constant twen- they ty years though expectancy because are not a the life are unconstitutional even accomplish every age group improved a valid has reasonable means other Young operate equal- during period. drivers who public purpose; do not dangerous age expect nighttime highly to them- “can fatal drink are selves, else. crashes of drivers of the affected everyone as as to well twenty-eight groups drop about study interesting measured the One percent. involving alcohol for auto accidents fatal Teenage drivers had ty-one-year group each 3.38 involved 100,000,000 100,000,000 —a twenty-year fatal rate olds, vehicle miles accident rate of vehicle 3.10 for approximately olds, highest miles 4.08 for twen- twenty-two compared travelled. any age alcohol- 4.5 per to but should The alcohol-crash-record tonomy en-driving, society should not afford au- * important * * ^[******] When eighteen- rather be more as death the concern is twenty-year injury by paternalistic. persons something drunk- olds, in 1.50 twen- twenty-four-year-olds and age relatively high group this com- ty-five The rates forty-four-year to olds. age groups. pared to other Its members twenties, early while in their they not shown that can be treated have teenagers, are still less than those for in like adults alcohol-related decisions strongly implicate quite substantial and they have not shown themselves group of drivers this responsible. involvement be involving alcohol. The in fatal accidents Professor Rosenthal’s footnotes refer- nineteen-, eighteen-, study showed support quot- ence studies to each statistic twenty-year olds had alcohol-involve- ed article shows that the effect of and his very rates close to ment fatal-accident age raising drinking takes more drunk- the rates the sixteen- and seventeen- Wyo.Stat. highways. en drivers off the * * * year olds. 31-7-128(f) 31-7-126 and age hol-impaired drivers were reduced mated that thirteen states. * * * had ^[******] Raising positive fatal crashes effect minimum investigators involving in ten of the drinking alco- esti- by majority were fatalities and drunks on the corn off the ers who designed opinion will be to keep company with John injuries. highway highway. keep certain The and, thus, put fallout more young Barley- reduce young driv- percent. They challenged also estimated determining thirteen In whether age constitutional, general drinking minimum raising the certain statutes are nationally approx- principles given save must effect. Statutes twenty-one would year. presumed to be constitutional. Baskin imately 550 lives each Compensation rel. ex Worker’s study by the Insurance A conducted Division, (Wyo.1986). 722 P.2d Highway Safety measured Institute for is on attacks constitu- The burden whoever raising the minimum drink- the effects beyond a reasonable tionality to show ing twenty-six states that had that a statute is unconstitutional. doubt 1975 and 1984. done so between State, P.2d O’Brien that, as a result of estimated researchers uphold can (Wyo.1986). When courts drinking age, “nighttime increasing legisla- and further the validity of a statute de- involvements” fatal crash driver measure, enacting intent tive percent. thirteen creased Application to do so. re are bound study nine states examined Another Health Servic- Need HCA Certificate of drinking age minimum raised the Inc., 108, 114 Wyoming, 689 P.2d es of 1, 1976, January September between doubts are (Wyo.1984). Any reasonable year “each estimated that 1980. It if by upholding the statute be resolved young 730 fewer could be about there State, P.2d possible. Armijo v. nighttime fatal involved drivers (Wyo.1984). drinking age if in all states the crashes equal challenged on a statute is beverages was to When raised for all alcoholic case, the grounds, protection estimated that twenty-one. It also alleging denial of party drinking upon burden raises its minimum state which equal protection State, to show that it has been White v. 784 P.2d (Wyo. 1989). subjected disparate resulting Simply treatment stated: Is the classification legislature equal protection. rationally in denial of chosen United related achieving legitimate governmental Corporation Wyoming En- in States Steel Council, terest? Quality vironmental 575 P.2d (Wyo.1978). “Equal protection equal protection provision of the con- require equality. Only does not exact dis- stitutions, “guarantees that similar individ- arbitrary

crimination which is and invidious uals will be dealt with in a similar manner prohibited.” Bell v. government.” Nowak, Rotunda, (Wyo.1985). Young, Law, Constitutional 2nd Ed. Ch. (West 1983). 1 at 586 Appellants here have raised claims under government If the classification relates both United States and Con- proper governmental to a purpose, then stitutions. This court has held re- * * * the classification does not violate spective equal protection provisions are guarantee distinguishes per- when it equivalents. County Washakie School upon permissi- sons as “dissimilar” some Herschler, Dist. No. One v. legiti- ble basis order to advance the O’Brien, (Wyo.1980); 711 P.2d at 1147. society. mate interests of Equal protection issues are determined Id. at 586-87. . by applying judicial one of two levels of A court must consider three factors in scrutiny. ordinary If an interest is in- equal determining protection challenges: volved, the court will determine if there is a (1) (2) Does a class exist? What is the relationship rational between the classifica- governmental purpose of the at legitimate objective. tion and a state If a (3) legislation rationally issue? Is the re- affected, fundamental interest is the classi- objective? lated to the agrees The state subjected fication will be to a scrutiny close that comprised the Act creates a class of necessary to determine if it is to achieve a licensed drivers under the of nineteen. compelling legisla- state interest. If the Next, inquire the court must as to what is arguable choosing ture had some basis for challenged legislation. chosen, the end and means then the disputed It is not that the state has a valid O’Brien, courts will sustain the law. generally protecting interest in improv- and P.2d at The inquiry 1147. here asks what ing safety Wyoming high- roads and type legisla- of interest is affected ways, deterring illegal pos- as well as by appellants tion. It is conceded that no session of alcohol. equal protec- The third Therefore, right fundamental is affected. inquiry is whether the statutes are the statutes: rationally objective. related to the In this need bear a reasonable relation to objective case the punish to deter and legislature’s legitimate interest underage drinking drug use. The preserving the economic and social stabil- question suspending is whether the driver’s ity of the state. a Such standard is license of one convicted of an alcohol or highly constitutionality deferential to the drug rationally related offense is related to is, of the statute. That if conceiva- deterring punishing underage alcohol exists reasonably, ble basis which will and substance abuse. although arguably, support the enact- ment, legislature we will assume that the In the penalty ap- circumstance here the non-arbitrary acted in a plies rational even if no motor vehicle is involved manner, and hold contend, will the statute to be with the Appellants offense. therefore, constitutional. Hoem v. P.2d that penalty is not related to (Wyo.1988); Cheyenne 782-83 Air- pur- offense in some The situations. port Rogers, [717,] Board v. pose questioned at statutes is to deter (Wyo.1985)]; Sup- punish Mountain Fuel underage and substance alcohol [ Emerson, use; ply Co. is the driver’s license sus- (Wyo.1978). pension. question is: “Does the sus- punish underage suspending and/or alco- idea driver’s licenses pension deter for non-vehicular offenses is not novel. It seems obvi- hol abuse?” and substance upheld Jersey Supreme The New Court Obtaining a li- ous that it does. driver’s twenty years ago a such law important events is one of the most cense Smith, 58 N.J. 276 A.2d 369 teenager’s in a life. It elevates social sta- finding that driver’s peers. symbolizes eyes It tus possession marijuana was respon- power. sign It is a freedom and permissible, the court observed: “It seems beginning breaking ties sibility and the temporary us addition forfei- being able to family one’s set with ture of a driver’s license to a stated fine rules. one’s own regulation imprisonment preventative as a recently quite A case similar to this was clearly represents reasonable exercise Pennsylvania. In Common- considered legislative power impose limitations Strunk, Pa.Super. wealth use.” upon highway Id. 276 A.2d (1990), presented A.2d 1326 the court was apparent It state has valid nineteen-year-old a case where the health, preserving safety, interest underage pos- appellant arrested for morals, stability economic and social session, consumption, transportation and general its citizens. stat- welfare beverage. Upon purchase of alcoholic rationally utes involved here are related conviction, appellant’s license was driver’s legitimate interests and do not state days. ninety Appellant suspended appellants equal protection deprive claimed, case, drinking his Accordingly, they do not vio- of the laws. opera- not connected to violation was either the United States late vehicle, possession tion or of a motor Constitutions. suspension not ration- that the license prohi recognized This that the court has pro- ally interest related the state’s legislation does not against special bition operation of motor vehic- moting the safe everyone mean that a statute must affect violated his les. He contends that this way; it means that the the same right process. 582 A.2d at 1327. to due Id. must contained the statute classification Pennsylvania appellant’s court found reasonable, and that the statute must merit. “We find that claim to be without property operate on all failed to introduce appellant has circumstances and condi same similar the statute evidence to establish Supply Em tions. Mountain Fuel Co. arbitrary or irrational. either [The statute] 1351, 1356 erson, (Wyo.1978). Ar a rational means de- represents indeed Wyoming Constitution ticle 27 of the consump- punishing underage terring and is a reasonable classifi not violated if there alcohol.” Id. at possession of tion and Russell, Nehring cation. importance court also noted the 1330. The (Wyo.1978). why privilege and a driver’s license Wyo.Stat. 31-7-126 By enacting is more a suspension effective re- 31-7-128(f), legislature monetary fine: rec- a “We deterrent than policy of citizens of flected the is an ognize a license to drive car highway fatali- driving and reduce drunken youths. Their social important privilege approached this had majority ties. If the status, physical in- psychological their have, pre- should case as fully ability partic- their dependence, and were constitu- sumption that the statutes may activity all be ipate peer group justified hold- tional, easily have could it privilege suspended.” implicated if this constitutionality upheld state ing of Id. Driv- not their wont. policy; that was privilege considered ing always been driving privileges is has losing threat however, majority, right; and rather than deterrent and an effective substantial so, privi- has elevated saying have without I court should think this punishment. ma- proportions. The lege constitutional and rationale Strunk. the rule adopted jority privilege has determined that the outweighs policy

few of the state and reducing inju-

its citizens in fatalities and highways.

ries on the society,

In our we obsessed with

rights neglect society A duties. everyone rights

cannot if function has responsibilities. uphold

no one I has would appellants’ driver’s li-

censes. BOWEN, Raymond

Pat Bernard

McGuire, Sr., Trust, Irrevocable Ber- McGuire, Jr., Raymond

nard McGuire, Trustees,

Thomas Michael Ranches, Wyoming

and Burnett A Part- (Plaintiffs),

nership, Appellants SMITH,

Thomas S. John E. Stanfield and

Smith, Scott, A Stanfield and Partner- Smith,

ship composed of Thomas S. Scott,

John E. Stanfield and John B. (Defendants).

Appellees Jones, Wheatland, appel- Frank J. No. 91-152. lants. Supreme Wyoming. Court of Hand, Douglas, J. Patrick and John B. Kunz, Aug. Speight Hathaway, Speight, Barrett, Cheyenne, appel-

Trautwein & lees. THOMAS, CARDINE, Before * GOLDEN, JJ„

URBIGKIT and BROWN, (Retired). J.

URBIGKIT, Justice. events, appeal, This course of in current presents the third lawsuit what is now generally designed legal malprac- to be a minority tice Appellants, action. share- holders, Smith, sued Stanfield and Scott— represented attorneys majority who parent corporation after shareholder rights against party a third were resolved * argument. Chief Justice at time of oral notes directly legislators accountable for such judicial disparate treatment. “[T]he approach for constitutional The Stevens’ government recognize must branch questions when confront- review asks four politically powerless interests First, protection equal ed issue. with speak for those interests order defend is harmed what class Hoem, concept justice.” at subjected to a “tradi- group has that been J., 787, Thomas, specially concurring. The by our laws? Id. at 1146. tion of disfavor” practical approach resulting conclusion disadvantages a tra- “That a classification special majority of both the Hoem signals ditionally class the likeli- disfavored completely consistent concurrence are product is hood that the classification disparate treatment constitutional anal- thinking." at stereotypical Id. 1155. Jus- ysis defined Justice Stevens Cle- of disfa- tice uses this “tradition Stevens burne. prophylactic question vor” “as ensure commonly confusing that is not shared Second, he governmental pur- is the what relevance.” Id. at n. prejudices with pose being served classification? Second, public purpose what purported While the do not state a statutes Third, being by the law? that is served Title purpose, they are located under the characteristic of the disadvan- what is ch. of the statutes deals justifies disparate taged class that The appellants with driver’s licenses. lastly, how are the char- treatment? And argue purpose State both distinguish people for used to understand, then, acteristics driving. drunk deter We disparate treatment relevant such high- that the asserted related challenged purport- purpose that the laws safety.9 way edly intend to serve? Next, is the characteristic what group justifies disparate treatment against backdrop It is we nineteen and compared the license statutes. to those between examine compared to Preliminarily, identify twenty-one class years we must years Joseph twenty-one Tussman and Jacobus ten- those who are older than issue. Laws, Broek, age? argument advanced Equal Protection those less distinguish The State to between XXXVII Calif.L.Rev. twenty- up less than made of those less and those contested class is than nineteen

Case Details

Case Name: Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner's Office

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 26, 1992

Citation: 838 P.2d 158

Docket Number: 90-297, 91-15

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.