No. 94-144
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1994
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEAN WADE FOLDA,
Defendant and Appellant
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone,
The Honorable Robert W. Holmstrom, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Dean Wade Folda, Pro Se, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General,
Brenda Nordlund, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney,
Carol Donaldson, Deputy County Attorney,
Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 28, 1994
Decided: November 21, 1994
Filed:
Clerk ::.j
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court.
Defendant Dean Wade Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County
Justice Court of four counts of operating a motor vehicle without
liability insurance, in violation of 9: 61-6-304, MCA; four counts
of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of
5 61-3-301, MCA; and one count of not wearing a seatbelt while
operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda
was convicted in Billings City Court of four counts of operating a
motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of
§ 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor
vehicle, in violation of 5 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not
wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of
§ 61-13-103, MCA. On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District
Court for Yellowstone County, the charges originating in Billings
City Court were consolidated and the charges which originated in
Yellowstone County Justice Court were consolidated separately.
Bench trials were held on both appeals: Folda was convicted in both
cases and appeals his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the
District Court.
The issue on appeal is:
Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a
result of his multiple convictions?
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Folda was cited in Yellowstone County Justice Court for four
counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in
violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an
2
unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of 9 61-3-301, MCA; and
one count of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor
vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda was cited in
Billings City Court for four counts of operating a motor vehicle
without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four
counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of
5 61-3-301, MCA; and two counts of not wearing a seatbelt while
operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA.
Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer
a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he is not required to register his
vehicle, wear a seatbelt, or maintain liability insurance. Folda
also asserts that he is not required to abide by any state or
federal laws.
After bench trials, Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County
Justice Court and Billings City Court on all counts.
On appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, bench
trials were again held pursuant to both appeals; Folda did not
cross-examine any opposing witnesses, nor did he offer any evidence
on his own behalf. Folda was convicted in both cases. He was
fined $125 and sentenced to ten days in jail (which would be
suspended upon the completion of eight hours of community service),
for each count of operating a motor vehicle without liability
insurance. He was fined $100 for each count of operating an
unregistered vehicle. Finally, he was fined $10 for each count of
driving without a seatbelt. The District Court also found that
Folda is unable to pay the fines.
3
DISCUSSION
Were Folda's constitutional or statutory rights violated as a
result of his multiple convictions?
When we review the constitutionality of a legislative
enactment, we will presume the statute to be constitutional and
will uphold the statute on review except when it is proven to be
unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lilbunz (Mont.
1994), 875 P.2d 1036, 1039, 51 St. Rep. 507, 508 (citing city OfBilrings
v.Laedeke (1991), 247 Mont. 151, 154, 805 P.2d 1348, 1349).
Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer
a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he no longer has to abide by any
state or federal laws, including registering his vehicle or
maintaining liability insurance for his vehicle. Folda also argues
that in order to be prosecuted for a statutory violation, a person
must injure or damage other persons or property and that, in this
case, he has done neither.
In 1837, the United States Supreme Court held that state and
local governments have an inherent power to enact regulations
concerning the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the public.
CharlesRiverBridgev. WarrenBridgeCo. (1837), 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 L. Ed.
773). We relied on this decision in CityofBillingsv.Skurdal (1986), 224
Mont. 84, 87, 730 P.2d 371. We have recognized that regulations
enacted pursuant to the state's police power V'[w]ill be presumed
reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary." Skurdal , 7 3 o
4
P.2d at 373 (quoting Bettey v. CilyofSidmy (1927), 79 Mont. 314, 319,
257 P. 1007, 1009).
Operation of a motor vehicle and abiding by the regulations
and statutory licensing procedures that follow is a privilege. state
y. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 291, 295, 767 P.2d 304, 307. An
individual's ability or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on
public roads is "[allways subject to reasonable regulation by the
state in the valid exercise of its police power." Skurdal, 767 P.2d
at 307 (quoting Gordonv. State (Idaho 1985), 697 P.2d 1192, 1193).
Reasonable regulations include Montana's requirements for vehicle
registration, insurance, and mandatory seatbelt usage. "[This]
. . . privilege . . . [of operating a motor vehicle on public
roads] may be revoked for noncompliance [with statutory
regulations] . . . .'I Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307.
The statutes that Folda violated "[aIre regulatory in nature
and no person in the state is exempt from [regulatory statutes]
. . . ." Cityofwhitefishv.Hansen (1989), 237 Mont. 105, 107, 771 P.2d
976, 977. Persons are not exempt from regulatory statutes, even if
they claim they are "free" men who are not Fourteenth Amendment
citizens and do not have to obey state or federal law.
We conclude that Folda has not shown that §§ 61-6-304,
61-3-301, and 61-13-103, MCA, are unreasonable or unconstitutional.
We conclude that neither Folda's statutory nor constitutional
rights were violated by requiring him to register his vehicle,
carry liability insurance, or wear a seatbelt. We conclude that
5
Folda's argument is without merit and affords no basis for relief.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
We concur:
Justi- .
6