State v. Beeman
| Decision Date | 21 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 541 P.2d 409,25 Ariz.App. 83 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Harold G. BEEMAN, Appellant. 1048. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Defendant/appellant Harold Beeman was found guilty on December 31, 1974, of driving a motorcycle without a helmet in violation of § 28--964A, Arizona Revised Statutes, Laws 1973. The pertinent part of this statute reads in part:
'A. The operator and passenger of a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle shall at all times, while operating or riding on such motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, wear a protective helmet on his head in an appropriate manner safely secured. The operator and passenger of a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle shall also wear protective glasses, goggles, or a transparent face shield of a type approved by the director unless the motorcycle or the motor-driven cycle is equipped with a protective windshield.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to electrically powered three wheeled vehicle or three wheeled vehicles on which the operator and passenger ride within an enclosed cab.'
The defendant contends on appeal that § 28--964A is unconstitutional in that it violates the due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution insofar as it is not a valid exercise of the state's police power. Our court has already ruled on this matter in State v. Also, 11 Ariz.App. 227, 463 P.2d 122 (1969). In upholding the constitutionality of the forerunner of the current statute which is essentially identical, Judge Krucker, speaking for the court, stated:
'(4) We do not believe that the purposes of the Act, whether it be solely directed at the individual's well-being or viewed as coincident with potential threats against public safety, places this regulation on a par with those which the decisions invalidating the statutes have suggested are similar.'
* * *
* * *
'Public highways just cannot be said to provide a place where anyone's encounter with danger can be tolerated. The ramifications are too broad.
We hold, therefore, that the statute in question is a constitutional exercise of the police power in the area of highway safety.'
Since Also, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed a Massachusetts District Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. See Simon v. Sargent, 346 F.Supp. 277 (1972), affirmed 409 U.S. 1020, 93 S.Ct. 463, 34 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974). The wording of the Massachusetts statute is essentially the same as ARS § 28--964A. 1
The defendant's position in Simon is identical to that of defendant Beeman in the present case; that is, he argued that the state's police power does not extend to overcoming the right of an individual to incur risks that involve only himself. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buhl v. Hannigan
...874 F.2d 1519; Simon v. Sargent (D.Mass.1972) 346 F.Supp. 277; Kingery v. Chapple (Alaska 1972) 504 P.2d 831; State v. Beeman (1975) 25 Ariz.App. 83, 541 P.2d 409; Penney v. City of North Little Rock (1970) 248 Ark. 1158, 455 S.W.2d 132; Love v. Bell (1970) 171 Colo. 27, 465 P.2d 118; State......
-
Benning v. State
...F.2d 1519, 1521 (11th Cir.1989) (construing Florida law); Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831, 835 (Alaska 1972); State v. Beeman, 25 Ariz.App. 83, 84-85, 541 P.2d 409, 410-11 (1975); Penney v. City of N. Little Rock, 248 Ark. 1158, 455 S.W.2d 132, 134 (1970); Love v. Bell, 171 Colo. 27, 465 P......
-
Robotham v. State, S-89-811
...head by debris, State v. Cotton, 55 Haw. 138, 516 P.2d 709 (1973); Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831 (Alaska 1972); State v. Beeman, 25 Ariz.App. 83, 541 P.2d 409 (1975); Penney v. City of North Little Rock, 248 Ark. 1158, 455 S.W.2d 132 (1970); Love v. Bell, 171 Colo. 27, 465 P.2d 118 (1970......
-
People v. Kohrig
...laws are a valid exercise of the State's police power. (See Kingery v. Chapple (Alaska 1972), 504 P.2d 831; State v. Beeman (1975), 25 Ariz.App. 83, 541 P.2d 409; Penney v. City of North Little Rock (1970), 248 Ark. 1158, 455 S.W.2d 132; Love v. Bell (1970), 171 Colo. 27, 465 P.2d 118; Stat......