State v. Craig
Decision Date | 25 June 1969 |
Citation | 19 Ohio App.2d 29,249 N.E.2d 75 |
Parties | , 48 O.O.2d 28 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CRAIG, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Section 4511.53, Revised Code, as amended and effective January 1, 1968, which requires the operator of a motorcycle on a highway to wear a protective helmet on his head, is constitutional.
Carl T. Wolfrom, Fostoria, for appellee.
Lester C. Huth, Fostoria, for appellant.
The defendant in this case was found guilty in the Fostoria Municipal Court of riding a motorcycle without a protective hilmet in violation of Section 4511.53, Revised Code, and has appealed on the ground that such statute deprives him of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the state of Ohio and the United States.
Section 4511.53, Revised Code ( ), reads, in pertinent parts, as follows:
'* * * * * *'
We are thus presented with a simple and direct question-Is the above enactment by the Legislature a constitutional exercise of the state's police power? This question has not been passed upon by an Ohio court.
It is settled constitutional doctrine that a state's police power can be properly exercised only where there is a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. Conversely, if the courts can find no relationship between the statute in question and the public health, safety, morals or welfare, the statute is unconstitutional. If there is no benefit flowing to the public from the enforcement of a statute which restricts individual freedom, there is a denial of liberty without due process of law. Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota (1927), 274 U.S. 1, 47 S.Ct. 506, 71 L.Ed. 893; Atkin v. Kansas (1903), 191 U.S. 207, 24 S.Ct. 124, 48 L.Ed. 148; Minnesota v. Barber (1890), 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L.Ed. 455; Mugler v. Kansas (1887), 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205.
In the recent case of American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Davids (1968), 11 Mich.App. 351, 158 N.W.2d 72, the Michigan Court of Appeals held a similar statute unconstitutional. The decision was based primarily on a finding that the statute was intended only for the protection of the individual motorcyclist-not for the safety and well being of the general public-and that it thus went beyond the permissible scope of the state's policy power. The court said
'The principle that a presumption of validity attaches to legislation is recognized. * * *
'* * *
'This statute has a relationship to the protection of the individual motorcyclist from himself, but not to the public health, safety and welfare.
'* * *
'The precedential consequences of 'stretching our imagination' to find a relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, require the invalidation of this statute.'
The above decision is representative of the initial reaction to such statutes by other courts. In People v. Smallwood (1967), 52 Misc.2d 1027, 277 N.Y.S.2d 429, the Justice of the Peace held a similar statute unconstitutional because 'The statute does not require this stated safety device upon the vehicle itself for the purpose of protecting other users of the highways from injuries or damage; it simply removes from the individual the right to exercise his judgment, or preference, in the use of personal adornment, even though capricious.' In People v. Carmichael (1967), 53 Misc.2d 584, at page 588, 279 N.Y.S.2d 272, at page 276, in construing a similar statute, the court said:
'To state this argument and concede that it has weight does not decide the issue. * * *'
The court, however, held, at page 590, 279 N.Y.S.2d at page 278:
'It is the holding of this court that subdivision 6 of section 381 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which requires the operator...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bogue v. Faircloth
...New Jersey v. Krammes, 105 N.J.Super. 345, 252 A.2d 223 (1969); North Dakota v. Odegaard, 165 N.W.2d 677 (N.D.1969); Ohio v. Craig, 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75 (1969); Oregon v. Fetterly, 456 P.2d 996 (Ore. 1969); Arutanoff v. Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 448 S.W.......
-
Arutanoff v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
...(Super.Ct.App.Div.1969) (per curiam); People v. Carmichael, 56 Misc.2d 388, 288 N.Y.S.2d 931 (Genesee Co.Ct.1968); State v. Craig, 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75 (1969); Ex Parte Smith, 441 S.W.2d 544 ...
-
State v. Betts
...rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, 626 (R.I.). The only Ohio case on this subject which has come to our attention is State v. Craig, 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75, decided 25 June, 1969 by the Court of Appeals for Seneca County. In that case the court 'We believe that with the great ......
-
State v. Betts, No. 29294
...rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, 626 (R.I.). The only Ohio case on this subject which has come to our attention is State v. Craig, 19 Ohio App.2d 29, 249 N.E.2d 75, decided 25 June, 1969 by the Court of Appeals for Seneca County. In that case the court 'We believe that with the great ......