City of Whitefish v. Hansen

• Decision Date: 19 April 1989
• Docket Number: Nos. 87-496,88-478,s. 87-496
• Parties: The CITY OF WHITEFISH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Garrick L. HANSEN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 976

771 P.2d 976

237 Mont. 105

The CITY OF WHITEFISH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Garrick L. HANSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 87-496, 88-478.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Feb. 3, 1989.

Decided April 19, 1989.

Garrick L. Hansen, Whitefish, pro se.

Marc Racicot, Atty. Gen., Robert F.W. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Thomas S. Muri, City Atty., Whitefish, for plaintiff and respondent.

SHEEHY, Justice.

The appellant, Garrick L. Hansen appeals from a judgment of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, finding him guilty of failing to have a valid driver's license, failing to carry motor vehicles insurance coverage, and failing to renew his motor vehicle registration. We affirm.

The issues raised on appeal by Hansen are:

1) whether the District Court violated appellant's constitutional rights; and

2) whether the "issuing" court had jurisdiction to try appellant for the violations aforementioned.

The case arises out of the following circumstances. On Thanksgiving Day 1988, appellant drove to a grocery store in Whitefish, Montana. Whitefish police officers approached Hansen in the parking lot of the shopping mall where the grocery store was located. The officers informed Hansen that his tail lights did not illuminate and asked for his driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Appellant told the officers that he was not a person required to carry such documents. The officers placed appellant under arrest.

We accepted this appeal based on public policy that pro se appellants should not be barred from access to the court. Courts of appeal should make all allowances possible in favor of persons appealing in propria persona. Wimberly v. Rogers (9th Cir.Mont.1977), 557 F.2d 671.

Hansen's first contention is that the District Court violated his constitutional rights. The arguments he offers to buttress his vague claims are indistinct, confused and incomprehensible. They show a disrespect for this Court whose function it is to decide serious questions of constitutional deprivation. We cannot dignify the contentions with anything beyond a curt reply.

This Court has previously addressed the issue concerning alleged violation of constitutional rights by requiring vehicle operators to carry a motor vehicle license, a driver's license and proof of vehicle insurance. In City of Billings v. Skurdal (Mont.1986), 730 P.2d 371, 43 St.Rep. 2036, we listed considerable authority on the issue:

The United States Supreme Court in 1837 recognized that state and local governments possess an inherent power to enact reasonable legislation for the health, safety, welfare, or morals of the public. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Co. (1837), 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 L.Ed 773. This Court has also recognized that such a police power exists even though the regulation may frequently be an infringement of individual rights. State v. Rathbone (1940), 110 Mont. 225, 241, 100 P.2d 86, 92. See also, State v. Penny (1910), 42 Mont. 118, 111 P. 727. Regulations that are formulated within the state's police power will be presumed reasonable absent a clear showing to the contrary. Bettey v. City of Sidney (1927), 79 Mont. 314, 319, 257 P. 1007, 1009....

We have 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.

State v. Deitchler (1982), 201 Mont. 70, 72-73, 651 P.2d 1020, 1021-22.

Art. VII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Montana vests the judicial power of the state in "one supreme court, district courts, justice courts, and such other cour...