NO. 81-224
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F O T N
1982
STATE O XONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
VS.
WESTLEY F. DEITCHLER,
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .
A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l
I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Rosebud
H o n o r a b l e A l f r e d B. C o a t e , J u d s e p r e s i d i n q .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For A.ppellant:
l i l e s t l e y F. D e i t c h l e r , P r o S e , F o r s y t h , Jqontana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
J o h n Maynard a r q u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
H e l e n a , Montana
J o h n S. F o r s y t h e , County A t t o r n e y , F o r s y t h , Montana
S. C h a r l e s S p r i n k l e a r q u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
F o r s y t h , Montana
Submitted.: S e p S e ~ b e r8 I 1982
Decided: October 7 , 1982
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
On A u g u s t 4, 1980, the d e f e n d a n t was stopped by a
highway p a t r o l m a n a n d i s s u e d c i t a t i o n s f o r w a s t i n g n a t u r a l
resources and for failing to display a Montana driver's
l i c e n s e on demand. He was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e two m i s d e m e a n o r s
following a jury trial in the Justice Court of Rosebud
County. H e appealed t o t h e District Court and, following a
t r i a l witnout a jury, was a g a i n c o n v i c t e d of t h e two o f -
fenses. This appeal follows.
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l :
1. Whether s e c t i o n 61-5-116, MCA, requiring t h a t a
driver's license be carried by the operator of a motor
vehicle and that it be e x h i b i t e d on demand, is c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l ; and,
2. Whether section 61-8-304, MCA, declaring that
speed limits should be set by the attorney general in
c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h l i m i t s imposed by f e d e r a l l a w , i s c o n s t i t u -
tional.
A p p e l l a n t c h a l l e n g e s b o t h s t a t u t e s on a d u e p r o c e s s
basis. H e premises h i s a r g u m e n t upon t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e
u s e o f p u b l i c h i g h w a y s by i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r v e h i c l e s and
w i t h t h e i r g a s o l i n e is a r i g h t . H e contends t h a t t h e p o l i c e
power of the s t a t e may not be exercised to regulate an
i n d i v i d u a l ' s u s e and c o n t r o l of h i s p r o p e r t y i n a n a t t e m p t
t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e g e n e r a l w e l f a r e and s a f e t y o f t h e p e o p l e
of the state. R a t h e r , h e a r g u e s t h a t o n l y when a n i n d i v i -
d u a l h a s i n f a c t harmed a n o t h e r t h r o u g h i r r e s p o n s i b l e u s e o f
h i s p r o p e r t y may t h e s t a t e e x e r c i s e i t s p o l i c e power. Appel-
l a n t ' s argument is w i t h o u t m e r i t .
The United States Supreme C o u r t in 1837 r e c o g n i z e d
t h a t s t a t e and l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s p o s s e s s a n i n h e r e n t power
to enact reasonable legislation for the health, safety,
welfare, or morals of the public. C h a r l e s R i v e r B r i d g e v.
W a r r e n B r i d g e Co. ( 1 8 3 7 ) , 36 U.S. (11 P e t . ) 420. This Court
has a l s o recognized that such a police power exists even
t h o u g h t h e r e g u l a t i o n may f r e q u e n t l y b e a n i n f r i n g e m e n t o f
individual rights. S t a t e v. R a t h b o n e ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 0 Mont. 225,
241, 1 0 0 P.2d 86, 92. See a l s o , S t a t e v. Penny ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 42
Mont. 118, 111 P. 727. Regulations that are formulated
w i t h i n t h e s t a t e ' s p o l i c e power w i l l b e p r e s u m e d r e a s o n a b l e
a b s e n t a c l e a r showing t o t h e c o n t r a r y . B e t t e y v. City of
S i d n e y ( 1 9 2 7 ) , 79 Mont. 3 1 4 , 3 1 9 , 257 P. 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 9 . Appel-
l a n t h a s n o t m e t h i s burden of making s u c h a showing.
Whether u s e of p u b l i c highways h a s been h e l d t o be a
right or a privilege, c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y i m p l i e d l y o r
expressly acknowledged the power of the state to require
licensing procedures to be followed prior to use of the
h i g h w a y s a n d h a v e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e s t a t e ' s power t o p r o p e r l y
r e g u l a t e t r a f f i c on t h e h i g h w a y s . Mackey v . Montrym ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
443 U.S. 1, 99 S . C t . 2612, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 321; Dixon v . Love
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 431 U.S. 1 0 5 , 97 S . C t . 1 7 2 3 , 5 2 L.Ed.2d 172; B e l l v.
B u r s o n ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 402 U . S . 535, 91 S.Ct. 1 5 8 6 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90;
Popp v . Motor V e h i c l e D e p a r t m e n t ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 2 1 1 Kan. 763, 508
P.2d 991; R o b e r t s o n v. S t a t e ex r e l . Lester (Okla. 1972),
5 0 1 P.2d 1099; Campbell v. S t a t e Dept. of Rev., Div. of
Motor Vehicles (1971), 176 Colo. 202, 4 9 1 P.2d 1385, 60
kLK3d 419; S t a t e v . Shak ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 5 1 Haw. 6 1 2 , 6 8 0 , 466 P.2d
422, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 930, 9 1 S.Ct. 191, 27 L.Ed.2d
1 9 0 ; Adams v . C i t y of Pocatello (1966), 91 Idaho 99, 416
P.2d 46. See a l s o , Annot., 6 ALR3d 506; Annot., 86 ALR3d
We nave previously recognized the power of the state
to regulate licensing of drivers in the interests of public
safety. Sedlacek v. Ahrens (1974), 165 Mont. 479, 483, 530
P.2d 424, 426. We have also recognized that the state's
exercise of police power in setting speed limits is in the
best interests of the state's economy and is in keeping with
the national goals of conservation of gasoline and oil and
of improved safety, Lee v. State (1981), Mont . I
635 P.2d 1282, 1287, 39 St.Rep. 1729, cert. denied, U.S.
Appellant's contentions fail.
Affirmed.
@&&a
R44-4,
Chief Justice
We concur: