State v. Hahn
441 P.2d 714
Idaho
1968
Check Treatment

*1 Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE HAHN, Defendant-Appellant. Richard

No. 10060.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June Bloem, Albaugh, Pike, Smith &

Falls, appellant. Shepard, Atty. Allan G. Max Gen. and Eiden, Jr., Atty. Boise, Gen., Asst. Kent J. Jolley, Atty.,- County, Pros. Madison Rex- burg, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice. Appellant appeals alleged violation of a vision of I.C. 31, 1965, appellant driving

March public highway truck on a in Madison County, Idaho, policeman when a state stopped him he drive propane gas, onto loaded with weighing scales. After comply, charged refused a violation a misde- meanor. charging against

(amended) appellant, filed directed court, probate County Madison “wilfully, in- did to sub- tentionally, unlawfully refuse weight driving mit the truck he was required by spection as the truck loaded to determine whether weight limita- propane gas was within *2 appellant vi- was with a lated set forth I.C. 49-9011 or tions *sis stipu- then they I.C: by said olation of refusing to drive the the state truck, lated that the sole having after to do so been weigh police in was stopping appellant by officers, the on attending operating; the was weighing up truck scales been set for which had inspection of the that no other purpose.” merchandise, product, or the having adjudged After in the guilty be hauling, intended to probate court alleged offense and of such officers, such by any made nor was therefor, appellant appealed fined inspection made. court to the district of the judicial in Madison seventh district 67-2927 reads: County. by the state of "Wherever Appellant, by demurrer, raised issue product any merchandise, or com- the facts stated in the modity being transported within the not constitute public offense. state, within the state without 1703(4). state, or from without state within of a Appellant trial, jury waived and both license or or is ^parties submitted the cause for decision n .upon by any department or tion or stipulated stipu- facts. After having respective spacing in tbe axle for gross 1. 49-901. ve Allowable loads.—No * * * following table: hicle, vehicle, motor trailer semi and/or weight (d) applying limitations In trailer, thereof, or combination imposed by be- this section the distance ."with the load thereon exceeds the fol- shall measured to tween axles lowing op weight limitations, i shall be fraction nearest even foot. When a public highway erated on a of this state: exactly larger (%) foot the next imposed one-half (fa) gross weight , on The total number be used. by whole shall highway any (1) 'fire shall not one axle n imposed by (e) n exceed this limitations 18,000 pounds, nor shall the total supplemental and by section are addition imposed highway gross weight on the imposing limitations 9,000 pounds. all other any (1) wheel exceed one upon weight imposed the size vehicles. gross weight (b) on total highway any group consecutive Special regulations notice 49-906. weight not exceed set axles shall judgment of in the thereof. —Whenever respective spacing in axle forth highway the Idaho board public directors * * * following table: fhe charge of, authorities weight limitations set (c) jurisdiction public highway over (cid:127) (a) (b) shall n operation hereof 3m subsections any highway or sec- on state vehicle, any vehicle, apply motor (cid:127)mot highway sizes tion vehicles semi-trailer, combina- trailer and/or speed weights at the rates of transporta- thereof, engaged in the tion damage permissible law cause will polos wood, stull, logs, pulp tion piling; the road reason of climatic or other any engaged such vehicle nor with the safe conditions will interfere ores, transportation concen- in trates, highway by the and efficient use of such gravel, aggregates sand traveling public, board the said Idaho bulk; any thereof, nor such ve- public highway author- directors or other transportation engaged hicle charge of, having jurisdiction ities unprocessed agricultural commodities public highway over shall have author- cluding livestock, vehicle but no such shall ity regulations reducing per- to make highways operated on sizes, speeds weights or of vehi- missible weight imposed gross on total where the operated highway cles on such such (1) any highway by one axle exceeds periods may necessary for the gross 38,900 pounds, total or where the public safety, tection road or for highway imposed on the signs desig- and shall erect and maintain 9,450 pounds, (1) wheel exceeds (cid:127)one nating regulations at each end of imposed gross the total highway where or section and at intersec- n on by any group highway high- of consec- tions with main ways. roads and traveled nn utivesaxles weight set forth exceeds the

267; ); Idaho, agency Bates, the state (1924 224 P. 668 668; operator parte Perring, motor vehicle trans- Ex porting see also *3 commodity hereby required stop at to state, complaint, charged The that entry checking such of stations only provisions violated had by the established commissioner unlawfully of in that he § inspection enforcement and submit to refused to submit truck he was driv- compliance the state of laws of ing, inspection allegedly to re- as Idaho.” quired by such section the statute. The of specific appellant’s issue thus is whether appel- The district in overruling court purview acts of come within 67- complaint lant’s demurrer to that ruled 2927, interpreted strictly to. as a refusal requires inspection an “Since this statute inspection.” “submit to find, compliance to if with all made, have been re- includes the law requires op— quiring weight.” erator stop truck to at port a a thereupon court adjudged appellant guilty checking inspec- station and submit to as him fined compliance tion for with the laws this- Appellant perfected appeal $100.00. commodity if from the of conviction. subject to the payment a license subject or is grading by to error, Appellant, by assignments any department or agency the state. contends that the trial er- court committed 67-2927,,, ror overruling Nothing demurrer to the com- §, is contained plaint, and in adjudging appellant literal!}', read guilty indicate to a 67-2927, violation might in that includes imply inspec- a complained provi- acts do not tion violate the load; any truck and its nor- spection sions such transported' section the statute. other than a com- modity subject payment which is to the defining A statute a crime a subject license or tax or to sufficiently explicit persons so that all grading. subject may thereto what know conduct complaint charge does the ap- Nor on their subject penal will them to its pellant was speci- transporting truck a Const., ties. 1, Idaho Art. v. 13. State commodity subject fied 529, Pigge, 532, 79 Idaho 322 P.2d 703 a license or tax subject or which to> was 56, (1957) Evans, State v. 73 Idaho depart- Mead, (1952) ; 245 P.2d 788 State v. ment or agency; nor that virtue' of so. 61 449, 455, 456, commodity, a he was State Burns, v. required to port truck at a A criminal give statute must station checking a clear and unmistakable warning as tion for with the laws- acts which will one to criminal state, and that he intentionally and unlaw- punishment, power courts are without fully failed refused so do. See supply legislature what has left Hall, State P.2d 685: vague. States, Screws v. United 325 U.S. S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. 1495 Evans, supra; Campbell, complaint charges only appel- P.2d unlawfully lant intentionally and refused to Burns, supra. An act cannot held submit the driving, weight truck he was clearly criminal under statute unless it appears from the language used that in that he to submit refused the truck Moore, intended. parte so propane gas weight inspec- Ex loaded with (1924) ; parte designated Ex tion at weighing provisions section of the stat- whether station in determine order' to weight limi- ute. within the loaded tations set judgment of reversed appellant re- charge, 906. Thus remanded with instructions cause fused to submit the loaded truck complaint. dismiss the criminal

weight determination, not within the SPEAR, purview TAYLOR, McQUADE of I.C. submission trans- commodity JJ., concur.

ported, inspection, not provided special- McQUADE, (concurring Justice *4 or to of a license ty)- department. state a our hold- misunderstanding Because hamper might present in action ing Respondent argues the latter public proper offi- law enforcement phrase inspec “submit § specially cers I wish to concur tion for aspects emphasize certain Justice Idaho,” naturally encompass must opinion. opinion does not That Smith’s as, perhaps, statutes, other' 49- I.C. §§ validity— either concern itself 901, charge 49-906 under a regulat- statutes unchallenged here —of brought agree under I.C. 67-2927. We § weight,1 the authori- ing excessive or with general proposition with the that the courts en- unquestioned a ty law here —of —also give effect to a statute wherever employ reasonable forcement officer possible keep within do so those in whether order to discover means terms, of language State v. used. violated.2,3 statutes are Justice Groseclose, Idaho P.2d 863 67 171 opinion only that the crim- Smith’s decides (1946) see Wright rel. also State ex v. complaint inal because defective Headrick, 65 Idaho of- Hahn’s did not constitute conduct Rayner, rel. State ex Anderson v. 67- charged,4 of I.C. fense violation § (1939). How 244 2927; agree. I ever, interpretation accept we cannot pertinent language of I.C. phrase, make would referred as “any submission for it a catch-all laws which commodity” might by appellant’s violated tax[ing], “licensing] is * acts under It is obvious consideration. stat grading.” violated, that were other laws the com con are regulating utes excessive plaint charge. should so loads, “ve gross exclusively with cerned load thereon.”5 hicle anywise We are not holding items composed not be Such load need nullity. We hold is a commodity” as “merchandise, product or however that the facts as stated understood;6 commonly those words are a complaint criminal constitute neither characteristic rather, relevant public offense, charge nor violation Winter, 49-906; 135 1. §§ 49-901 and I.C. § (1913); generally C.J.S. Ob- 67 see 739 909. structing Am. 39 Justice 67-2901; 61-801(d); 2. See I.C. 67- §§ Obstructing (1942). Jur., Justice §§ 2926(a); Harris, cf. Cornell 19-1411(2). 4. See 88 P.2d “Every 3. It is of course offense g 5. wilfully person resists, delays/or ob- who Campbell, Cf., officer, any public dis- structs Cosgrove, attempt discharge, charge, P.2d 956 to' 278, 210 P. 393 duty of his office.” 18-705. Cf. special Being chapter 15 of that heaviness. load would be its statute, (E.S.), p. ch. “cannot penal session. S.L.1950 chapter 26. That authorized establish- extended broadened or construction checking stations penalize acts conduct not ment of include enforcement. commissioner clearly And so within terms.”7 think, chapter is set out opinion, correctly I Smith Justice terms: following Section thereof meaning stretch the refuses encompass refusal statute Hahn’s help augment make more “To efficient and effective enforcement Idaho, of certain laws of the State of SPEAR, J., concurs. Enforcement of Law Commissioner directed hereby authorized and McFADDEN, (dissenting). time to time establish Justice checking permanent ports Appellant was convicted of a violation upon any highways the State stations of I.C. 67-2927 set out verbatim in the Idaho, places at such Commis- opinion. majority By deem shall Enforcement sioner of Law *5 as follows: and necessary I.C. advisable.” * * * “That Richard the Hahn on (a). March, m., day 31st of at 10:50 a. the act states: Section in of County the of Madison and State of Idaho, then being, and there did then and “The Enforce- Law Commissioner of wilfully, there intentionally, and unlaw- directed, hereby ment in is the adminis- fully refuse to submit the Ch. (E.S.) tration this act of [S.L.1950 driving required 15.], depart- cooperate other with the I.C. to-wit: the defendant agencies ments the of and of was driving Ford truck loaded with enforc- responsibility which of * * * propane gas approximately 2 ing licensing, taxing and miles City, West Teton of in Idaho Mad- laws.” County ison point at of Port which legisla- The underlying of this Entry of the State of Idaho established tive enactment is authorize clear —to a temporary weighing station and said merchandise, pro- of defendant having stopped by been au- ducts determine “com- and commodities to thorities of the Port Entry refused of pliance with of of submit the pro- said truck loaded with Idaho.” I.C. 67-2927. pane gas weight inspection to deter- mine whether the truck loaded with said department has enforcement of law propane gas was within the limi- power penal all and “to enforce of set tations in 49-901 or 67— regulatory the state.” laws of intentionally wilfully, then and there department 2901. The enforcement of law and unlawfully refusing to drive said duty power also is vested after been part obedience on the of to enforce so the attending officers, on tem- motor the state carriers to all statutes of porary weighing scales which had applicable to carriers. set up purpose.” for that By terms act carrier motor 67-2927 was enacted at the extra- (Ch. I.C.), Title carrier” ordinary session of the a “motor Fitzpatrick, In re Dampier, Independ- Cf. District, Collins, ent School etc. carrier, dise, product commodity being trans- is defined to mean “common con- ported within the state One private de- tract carrier or carrier.” The statute, cannot, intimately in partment construing this latter enforcement is of law divorce the load from the means of trans- pertaining connected with laws carriers, operation vehicles, porting it. motor motor trucks and the enforcement of the “inspection” term used Chapter 9, I.C., deal- visions Title encompasses more than visual speed regulations ing weight, tire spection merchandise, product of a load of of motor vehicles this state. commodity in con- must be read —it junction pur- of a statute and its with the fact that the Consideration poses transported. scope product “in given commodity not vacuo,” legis- That trans- light existing but section of other when ported merchandise, Certainly, commodity lation. it cannot be said department department not by any of law enforcement is with- scope authority duty agency oper- owner ator of the motor vehicle establishment of either merchandise, product re- permanent ports entry; cannot quired stop submit to In department doubted en- operator words the owner operation forcement these vehicle is “inspect” transported can merchan- majority opin- dise. view the Under the gravamen state of Idaho. The ion it would seem that the this crime is the failure port that can be made at such a operator of the *6 vehicle However, is of the itself. merchandise subj is ect which to an pointed must be that out and to submit to- to an “merchandise, only.with transported deals determine whether there is with products commodity” the laws state. “transported commodity” tion of a nec- “inspection” The contemplated the- by essity encompasses means merely inspection; statute is not visual transported. such commodity being when the establish com- pliance with the laws Idaho- state of appeal alleges The encompass it can determination of intentionally, “wilfully, did e., physical load, i. characteristics unlawfully refuse submit the truck he 49-901,. ” size, weight, height, length (I.C. * §§ * * driving weight was- 49-815, 49-913, be- 49-916), of which all particularly and then alleges the facts es- -dealing come when one is with involved tablishing commission of the Ex- “compliance the laws of Idaho.” with crime, appel- including allegation inspections amples other laws for which lant “refused to submit the said load- 25-1510, 25— may are I.C. §§ propane ed gas weight inspection with 39-3017, con- * of which 49-901, particu- *.” I.C. which is or an- template an one sort larly complaint, pertains mentioned weight of other. determination of weights to allowable of vehicles “with requires the- necessity vehicle, a loaded again load thereon *.” Here load there- weighing of a vehicle its with alone, or the involves not the truck criteria sub--, on, and the load alone, both. but combination of load “compliance- jected to an concept The same true basic Idaho.” “merchan- which deals with “inspect” is defined Web- The-term ster, as “1: BULLOCK, Dictionary (1961) doing 3d Int. T. C. business as Merchants Adjustment Bureau, Plaintiff-Appellant, ex- *; critically closely view examine

amine care: 2: to view JAEGER, Melvin Defendant-Respondent. de- officially.” “examine” is The word No. 9454. appropriate meth- fined, “1: to test ex- “1: To “Weigh” od.” is defined Supreme Court Idaho. Thus, one when amine balance.” June article, it with he “examines” "weighs” an weight, when one

respect it. article, “examines”

spects “in- me inescapable to

conclusion is ma- broader term than

spection” ais “Inspection” must

jority opinion indicates. inspection. weight taken include a Co., 230 Sunlight Oil & Gasoline

Kucker v. McCanless A.

Pa. Lines, Tenn. Greyhound

Southeastern 162 S.W.2d if opinion majority states violated, complaint should were appellant violated However,

charge such. law, one that of It could to an

failing appellant vio-

not be determined whether until a

lated the limit law

inspection could be made. *7 must contrue my

It is view we effect- in a reasonable manner to City (see

uate the Mathewson,

of Lewiston v. Groseclose, (1956); P.2d State (1946); P.2d State Bowman, Cosgrove,

210 P. 393 v. Omaechev-

viaria, (1915)), P. 280

and that would “in- such construction

spection” weight. include an

It is my conclusion

was not to demurrer. The facts

alleged, stipulated to parties, estab-

lished a violation of the provisions The judgment of conviction

should be affirmed.