(dissenting).
With due respect to our disagreeing colleagues, I am impelled to state that the majority opinion impresses me as a strained effort to cast the statute in a light different from its true intent and meaning for the purpose of making it appear to be unconstitutional and striking it down. It is my judgment that such a ruling is contrary to sound principles of law and considerations of policy. In addition to the cogent and correct observations of Justice Ellett, including : that a legislative enactment should not be so nullified unless it is violative of sortie constitutional provision beyond a reasonable doubt, I offer some further comments.
First, I re-emphasize that this statute does not authorise a peace officer to make *807an unlawful arrest. Nor does it authorize the seizure of any person or property. It does not deal with when or under what circumstances the lawful arrest may be made. That subject is dealt with elsewhere in the law.1 Neither does it in any way adversely affect or deprive any person who is subjected to an improper or unlawful arrest of any right or remedy he has always had under the law. It seems inescapably plain to me that the sole purpose of this statute is to safeguard against interference with a peace officer who is attempting to make an arrest, to the end that violence may be avoided.
This statute may be different than you or I, or the other justices of this court may desire it to be, or would have drafted it, had that been their responsibility. But I certainly do not think it is beyond the realm of rationality to see it as the expressed will of the people of this State, acting through their legislature, that when any duly authorized peace officer is attempting to make an arrest, no citizen should interfere with him. If the arrest proves to be improper or unlawful, whoever is aggrieved thereby is not without the remedies the law gives him, both in that case if it comes to court, and/or in another if he wants to sue. All this statute does is to make it a misdemeanor if he presumes to judge the lawfulness of the arrest, and interferes with the officer in the performance of his duty.
In considering whether it is within the power of the state legislature to enact such a statute it is important to have in mind that, as contrasted to the federal government, which has only those powers expressly granted to it, the legislature of this State has all of the powers of sovereignty, except only as expressly limited or prohibited by the constitution.2 It therefore has the power to enact any law or regulation calculated to preserve the peace and good order of the citizenry, unless some constitutional provision prohibits it.
The provision of our Constitution quoted and relied on as nullifying the statute is Section 14, Article I, relating to searches and seizures. It is submitted that if that section is considered in its total context, as rules of construction require, it will be seen that the purpose of that section is in accordance with its title “Unreasonable searches forbidden — Issuance of warrant”; and that it is dealing with the invasion of privacy by unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers and effects and when the issuance of a warrant is necessary for that purpose, and not with the matter of making an arrest of the nature involved here. I therefore do not see how that constitutional provision can properly be regarded as preventing the legislature from enacting a peace and good order statute such as the one in question, nor how it has any application to the situation dealt with in this case.
We should look at the composite of this fact situation in a light supportive of the jury verdict, approved by the trial court in his denial of motion to set it aside. But, let it be conceded that the police officer may have been mistaken concerning the defendant’s having a revoked driver’s license. The main opinion is at some pains to explain how the police officer could have handled this apparently arrogant and insolent defendant in a different manner. It wholly ignores the proposition that if this defendant had not been a person of that disposition, and if he had a valid driver’s license on him as the law requires, he could *808have avoided any difficulty for himself or the police officer by simply so stating and exhibiting the license. But he- chose the contrary course which resulted in the difficulty in which he finds himself.
I cannot see it as consistent with my judicial duty in the light of what I regard as correct principles of law and sound policy to align myself with the position of this defendant who obviously manifests a disposition to flout the law and authority, and place the burden of exemplary behavior on the peace officer who is trying to enforce and uphold it. It is my impression that, quite different from the view taken by the jurors and the trial judge, the possibility exists that some members of the court may view the fact situation in this case as offensive to their sense of justice. If this be so, and the ends of justice require overturning the verdict, this court could very well do so by deciding that the peace officer was wrong and that there was no justification for finding that the defendant was “interfering” with the peace officer making an arrest. I could not agree with that solution, believing that to be the prerogative of the jury and the trial court. But in my judgment that would be a solution more nearly rational and in conformity with proper judicial function and prerogative than to strike the statute down to rectify one seemingly harsh case. This would also be in harmony with the well-established principle of constitutional law: that the court should not declare a statute unconstitutional if the case can be decided on other grounds.3
In any event, it should be indicated that it is unconstitutional only as applied when a person resists arrest as to himself or his family, and not remove its effect from other situations where its salutary purpose should be preserved.
. See Title 77, Oh. 13, Utah Code Ann.1953.
. To avoid repetition on this subject here, see statement in Wood v. Budge, 13 Utah 2d 359, 374 P.2d 516, and authorities therein cited.
.See Heathman v. Giles, 18 Utah 2d 368, 374 P.2d 839; 16 Am.Jur.2d 301.