State v. Free
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 5153,5153 |
| Citation | 321 So.2d 50 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell H. FREE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Eugene P. Cicardo, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
L. Paul Gianfala, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.
In this civil proceeding defendant Russell H. Free appeals the judgment ordering him to surrender to plaintiff State of Louisiana all permits and licenses to operate a motor vehicle on finding him to be a habitual offender as defined by LSA-R.S. 32:1472. We affirm.
Pursuant to the habitual offender statute, the Department of the Public Safety certifies a record of convictions to the appropriate district attorney when a driver accumulates a certain number of prescribed convictions within a five year period. The statute mandates filing a petition in criminal district court which results in an order to defendant to show cause why he should not be adjudged an habitual offender. A judgment so rendered requires defendant to surrender his licenses and permits to operate a motor vehicle and directs him not to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of this state for five years. The penalty for violation of this order is imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. LSA-R.S. 32:1480. If a person adjudged an habitual offender is charged (and convicted) of an offense prescribed by this chapter after his adjudication an additional penalty is provided. § 1481.
The threshold issue is the nature of the action--is it civil or criminal? On argument the State conceded statutory interpretation alone would defeat its case if this were a criminal matter for strict construction would then be required. We also note this court's jurisdiction is restricted to civil matters. Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Art. V, § 10.
Defendant argues this statute is in derogation of his right to operate a motor vehicle and for that reason should be narrowly construed. We reject this contention.
A distinction is made between 'rights' and 'privileges' to allow broad construction of statutes affecting privileges. Regard for persons is the pivotal basis for applying narrow construction to statutes as they more directly adversely affect the person.
However, construing a statute narrowly as it affects one interest usually results in a broad construction as it affects other interests. Therefore some reason must be established to determine whose is the prime interest for protection. We take our cue by determining whose interest the 'right or privilege' to drive was intended to further. For example, the privilege of holding public office was intended to benefit the public. Ricks v. Department of Public Service, 200 La. 341, 8 So.2d 49 at 56 (1942). The familiar example of the Bill of Rights is one intended to preserve an individual's liberty and therefore is for his private benefit.
The state's streets and highways are constructed with public funds as arteries of commerce and transportation for the public's benefit and well being. There may be incidental private benefit from operating a motor vehicle, but the individual's right to operate a vehicle is in furtherance of the public interest.
So long, then, as the state is free of arbitrary, capricious or invidious discrimination, it may restrict this 'right or privilege' to promote the public welfare it was originally conceived to serve. Courts will 'broadly' interpret such statutes in the public's favor. Perhaps to say the court will give the fullest effect to the premise that the legislature intends to benefit the public interest is more accurate.
In this court Free filed exceptions of no right and no cause of action. The exception of no right of action was abandoned at argument.
The exception of no cause of action is aimed at two points in LSA-R.S. 32:1472(A)(1)(b), a portion of the law under which the surrender of Free's driver's license was ordered. The statute defines habitual offenders as persons who, within a five-year period, have accumulated three or more convictions of certain stated offenses including:
§ 1472(A)(1)(b) Operating or attempting to operate while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, operating or attempting to operate while impaired by the use of intoxicating liquor or drugs or operating or attempting to operate while intoxicated by the use of intoxicating liquor or drugs . . .
Free frist contends the section does not refer to operating a Motor vehicle while intoxicated, since the italicized words do not appear. Secondly, he was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages (LSA-R.S. 14:98)--not of intoxicating liquor, as required by the above quotation.
The absence of an object for the sentence regarding 'operating or attempting to operate' would be a fatal defect in a criminal statute. In this civil statute it creates an ambiguity--operate what?--which we resolve by ascertaining the legislative intent. The Mary Ann, 21 U.S. 380, 8 Wheat. 380, 5 L.Ed. 641 (1823); State ex rel Reuter v. Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans, 161 La. 207, 108 So. 417 (1926). In construing the statute all parts are construed together. Reynolds v. Baldwin, 1 La.Ann. 162 (1846). In the remaining sub-paragraphs, the words motor vehicle appear as the object of the activity described therein. The chapter title is Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Law.
Examination of the legislative history of Senate Bill 302 (of 1972), the legislative instrument by which this law originated reveals that the ellipsis was present in its inception, not the result of a deliberate deletion by amendment. The context of the statute in which the quoted section appears establishes 'motor vehicles' as the object to which 'operating' refers. The inference that 'motor vehicle' is the proper object is so obvious as to make extended justification unnecessary.
Literally interpreted there is a disparity between the terms 'intoxicating liquor' and 'alcoholic beverages.' State v. Viator, 229 La. 882, 87 So.2d 115 (1956). But there are alcoholic beverages which are intoxicating. We take judicial notice that one's driving is impaired because of intoxication from alcohol whether it be in the limited form of intoxicating liquor or in the all inclusive form of intoxicating beverages. The distinction is not essential because the legislature bases the cause of action on the 'offenses described' as section (A) characterizes these subsections. Although this language may be inadequate to define a crime, it is sufficient to refer to the convictions which are the relevant facts. The disparity in terms does not defeat the reference. Gardner v. State, Department of Public Safety, 198 So.2d 184 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967). The legislature intended to prevent multiple 'DWI' and other serious driving offenders from driving on the highways.
Free assigns the trial court's denial of his motion for a suspensive appeal as error. The district attorney contends the statute does not specifically authorize a suspensive appeal and the trial court has discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...1360 [driver may not contest validity of a prior criminal conviction at civil habitual traffic offender proceeding]; State v. Free (La.App.1975) 321 So.2d 50, 54 ["the constitutional restrictions on the state's imposition of criminal sanctions is not germane to determine the state's right i......
-
State v. Kamalski
...v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 563 S.W.2d 795 (1978); Application of Gross, N.Y.Supr., 284 App.Div. 786, 135 N.Y.S.2d 435 (1954); State v. Free, La.App., 321 So.2d 50 (1975), aff'd 325 So.2d 272 Respondents cite various decisions which they contend establish a divergent line of authority allowing ......
-
State v. Page
...in this state which have reviewed the statute have determined that the revocation proceeding is indeed a civil action. State v. Free, 321 So.2d 50 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1975) writs refused, 325 So.2d 272; State v. Love, 312 So.2d 675 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1975), writs refused, 317 So.2d 627. In State......
-
Roberson v. Town of Pollock
...So.2d 1262 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982), citing Gardner v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 198 So.2d 184 (La.App. 3 Cir.1967); State v. Free, 321 So.2d 50 (La.App. 3 Cir.1975), writ denied, 325 So.2d 272 (La.1976). The United States Supreme Court has noted that, even in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases, a col......