State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 12 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 7,7 |
| Citation | 275 N.C. 168,166 S.E.2d 49 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Calvin ANDERSON. |
Douglas, Ravenel, Hardy & Crihfield, Greensboro, for defendant.
The General Assembly, by Chapter 674, Session Laws of 1967, rewrote Subsection (b) of G.S. § 20--140.2 to read as follows:
'(b) No motorcycle shall be operated upon the streets and highways of this State unless the operator and all passengers thereon wear safety helmets of a type approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.'
The Act became effective on January 1, 1968. The defendant was arrested on January 21, 1968 and charged with operating a motorcycle on the public streets of Greensboro without the required protective helmet.
Before plea, the defendant moved to quash the indictment upon the ground the statute creating the offense violated his rights under Article I, Section 17, Constitution of North Carolina and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The defendant contended the statute regulated his private conduct without any showing of such public interest or purpose as would promote or contribute to the public health, morals, safety or welfare. He concedes he has no defense to the charge if the General Assembly had the constitutional power to pass the Act under which the charge is laid.
If the section of the statute here challenged imposes an unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious restriction on an operator of a motorcycle on the public highway without contributing in any reasonable or substantial way to the safety of travel on the highway, the regulation was outside the police power of the state, and the motion to quash should have been allowed. State v. Brown, 250 N.C. 54, 108 S.E.2d 74; State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 51 S.E.2d 731, 7 A.L.R.2d 407; State v. Harris, 216 N.C. 746, 6 S.E.2d 854; 128 A.L.R. 658; State v. Brockwell, 209 N.C. 209, 183 S.E. 378. The rule is succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 49 S.Ct. 57, 73 L.Ed. 204:
'The police power may be exerted in the form of state legislation where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment only when such legislation bears a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or some other phase of the public welfare.'
If the requirement that the operator of a motorcycle on a public highway wear a protective helmet contributes in any real or substantial way to the safety of other travelers, then the regulation is a constitutional exercise of police power by the General Assembly, and the motion to quash was properly denied. State v. Hales, 256 N.C. 27, 122 S.E.2d 768, 90 A.L.R.2d 804; State v. Warren, 252 N.C. 690, 114 S.E.2d 660.
In passing upon the constitutional question involved, this Court must assume that acts of the General Assembly are constitutional and within its legislative power until and unless the contrary clearly appears. State v. Brockwell, Supra; Strong's N.C. Index 2d, Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, Sec. 6, p. 190. Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 248 N.C. 102, 102 S.E.2d 853.
For the reasons hereinafter discussed, we think the requirement that a motorcycle operator wear the required safety helmet bears a real and substantial relationship to public safety. The General Assembly, therefore, had ample authority, under its police power, to enact the section of the statute here challenged and to make its violation a criminal offense. We are fortified in this view by many considerations, among them the fact that a majority of our sister states has enacted a similar statute. Michigan's act was passed in 1948, Georgia's in 1962, and New York's effective January 1, 1967. The others have been enacted since 1966. As this Court said in State v. Whitaker, 228 N.C. 352, 45 S.E.2d 860:
The recent passage of so many state statutes requiring motorcycle operators to wear the helmet seems to have been triggered by the Act of Congress approved September 9, 1966 (15 U.S.C.A. § 1381 et seq.) known as 'National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966'. The preamble to the Act recites:
Section 104 provides:
'(a) The Secretary shall establish a National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council, a majority of which shall be representatives of the general public, including representatives of State and local governments, and the remainder shall include representatives of motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and motor vehicle dealers.'
Section 103 provides:
'(a) The Secretary shall establish by order appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each such Federal motor vehicle safety standard shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms.
(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.'
The National Safety Council has promulgated rules, among them the following:
'Each state, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and local governments, must have a motorcycle safety program.
A. Criteria
2. Protective Headgear
a. Motorcycle operators and their passengers should be required to wear approved protective headgear whenever the vehicle is in motion.'
The defendant was indicted in the state court for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buhl v. Hannigan
...v. Bielmeyer (1967) 282 N.Y.S.2d 797, 54 Misc.2d 466; People v. Bennett (1977) 391 N.Y.S.2d 506, 89 Misc.2d 382; State v. Anderson (1969) 275 N.C. 168, 166 S.E.2d 49; State v. Stouffer (1971) 28 Ohio App.2d 229, 276 N.E.2d 651; State v. Fetterly (1969) 254 Or. 47, 456 P.2d 996; Commonwealth......
-
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp.
...In doing so, the statute is presumed constitutionally valid unless and until the contrary is shown. Id. (citing State v. Anderson, 275 N.C. 168, 175, 166 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1969)). Here, the contrary has not been shown and we reject plaintiffs' contention that section 1D-25 violates the princip......
-
People v. Kohrig
...Albuquerque v. Jones (1975), 87 N.M. 486, 535 P.2d 1337; People v. Bennett (1977), 89 Misc.2d 382, 391 N.Y.S.2d 506; State v. Anderson (1969), 275 N.C. 168, 166 S.E.2d 49; State v. Odegaard (N.D.1969), 165 N.W.2d 677; State v. Stouffer (1971), 28 Ohio App.2d 229, 276 N.E.2d 651; Elliott v. ......
-
Painter v. Wake County Bd. of Ed.
...unconstitutional unless it is clearly so, and all reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of its validity. State v. Anderson, 275 N.C. 168, 166 S.E.2d 49 (1969); Glenn v. Board of Education, 210 N.C. 525, 187 S.E. 781 (1936). As we said in State v. Anderson, supra, 275 N.C. at 171, 166 S......