People v. Carmichael

• Decision Date: 29 February 1968
• Citation: 56 Misc.2d 388,288 N.Y.S.2d 931
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Donald J. CARMICHAEL, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 931

288 N.Y.S.2d 931

56 Misc.2d 388

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Donald J. CARMICHAEL, Defendant.

Genesee County Court.

Feb. 29, 1968.

Ernest M. Found, Dist. Atty. of Genesee County, by Daniel M. Babcock, Batavia, of counsel, for the People-Appellant.

Donald J. Carmichael, pro se.

Hickey & McHugh, Rochester, E. James Hickey, Rochester, of counsel, for amicus curiae American Motorcycle Ass'n.

Short & Dworkin, New York City, Bernard Dworkin, New York City, of counsel, for amicus curiae Metropolitan Cycle Ass'n.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

GLENN R. MORTON, Judge.

The Defendant was charged with a violation of Section 381(6) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York for allegedly operating a motorcycle on February 15, 1967 without a protective helmet. The charge was laid before the Special Sessions Court for the Town of Oakfield and on April 26, 1967 Town Justice, Richard D. Yunker, held the statute unconstitutional and dismissed the information. (53 Misc.2d 584, 279 N.Y.S.2d 272) The People now appeal to this Court. The Defendant appeared at the hearing on this appeal but did not participate in person or by an attorney. The American Motorcycle Association and Metropolitan Cycle Association requested and were granted permission to appear as Amicus Curiae.

Subdivision 6, Section 381 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides that: 'It shall be unlawful, on and after January first, nineteen hundred sixty-seven, for any person to operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he wears a protective helmet of a type approved by the commissioner. Such a helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap and be reflectorized on both sides thereof. The commissioner is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt and amend regulations covering the types of helmets and the specifications therefor and to establish and maintain a list of approved helmets which meet the specifications as established hereunder.'

The only question raised on this appeal is whether the instant statute is unconstitutional. The issues framed in this regard are whether the statute is sufficiently clear and definite, amounts to an improper delegation of legislative powers, encompasses a valid exercise of police power by the State of New York, is discriminatory so as to deny the Defendant equal protection of laws, is an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, and contemplates an infringement on the Defendant's right of privacy.

While it is well settled that Courts have the power to determine whether a statutory enactment transcends the limits imposed by the Federal or State Constitutions (Sherrill v. O'Brien, 188 N.Y. 185, 81 N.E. 124); the exercise of this right is a grave responsibility (People v. Beakes Dairy Co., 222 N.Y. 416, 119 N.E. 115, 3 A.L.R. 1260) and requires great caution (People v. Budd, 177 N.Y. 1, 22 N.E. 670, 682, 5 L.R.A. 559; People ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 241 N.Y. 405, 150 N.E. 497, 43 A.L.R. 909). To warrant intervention by the Courts, the challenged legislation must be manifestly, undoubtedly, clearly, substantially and palpably inconsistent with constitutional standards (People ex rel. Carter v. Rice, 135 N.Y. 473, 31 N.E. 921, 16 L.R.A. 836; Thompson v. Wallin, 276 App.Div. 463, 95 N.Y.S.2d 784; Hotel Ass'n of New York City v. Weaver, 3 N.Y.2d 206, 165 N.Y.S.2d 17, 144 N.E.2d 14; In Re Davison's Estate, 1237 Misc. 852, 244 N.Y.S. 616, aff'd 236 App.Div. 684, 258 N.Y.S. 42; Zorach v. Clauson, 303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2d 463). The rationale for this caveat is the underlying principle that the legislature is presumed to have acted within the limits of its authority (Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N.Y.2d 215, 173 N.Y.S.2d 579, 149 N.E.2d 869).

A determination of the validity of the instant statute depends largely on the ability of the state to regulate the proscribed conduct under its so-called police power. The police power of the state is a basic right inherent in all civilized government, (Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Company, 201 N.Y. 271, 94 N.E. 431, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 162), and is loosely defined as the means by which the legislature exercises a supervision over matters involving the common welfare, and enforces the observance, by each individual member of society, of the duties which he owes to others and to the community at large (People v. King, 110 N.Y. 418, 18 N.E. 245, 1 L.R.A. 293). While it is the least limitable of government powers, it is in addition to constitutional limitations, required to have a purpose falling within the purview of the police powers (People v. Faxlanger, 1 A.D.2d 92, 147 N.Y.S.2d 595, aff'd 1 N.Y.2d 393, 153 N.Y.S.2d 193, 135 N.E.2d 705), reasonably designed to effectuate the stated purpose (People v. Munoz, 9 N.Y.2d 51, 211 N.Y.S.2d 146, 172 N.E.2d 535), and it must not be arbitrary or oppressive (Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N.Y. 346, 93 N.E.2d 884).

The instant subdivision (together with four others also relating to motorcycles) was enacted at the request of the Department of Motor Vehicles following an extensive study by a special committee appointed by the Commissioner (L.1966, c. 979). The Departmental Memorandum to the Legislature (see McKinney's 1966 Sessions Laws of New York at Page 2691) citing the results of this study, stated that 'The number of accidents involving motorcycles is increasing rapidly. In fact, motorcycle accidents increased by 105% In 1965 as compared to 1964, while the total registration of these vehicles increased by 83%. Fatalities increased by 63.6% And personal injury accidents by 100%. A summary of the Department statistics indicates that 89.2% Of the motorcycle accidents result in injury or death and that almost all fatalities occurring as a result of such accidents involve head injuries. Most of these fatalities could have been avoided, or the severity lessened, by the use of a proper helmet'. In recommending the proposed legislation, the department further related that such '* * * should go far in protecting the drivers and passengers on motorcycles'.

The purposes for which the police power may be validly exercised are varied and include matters which affect the general welfare of the people (Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2d 665, rev'd on other grounds 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098); together...