State v. Rivera
Citation | 260 Iowa 320,149 N.W.2d 127 |
Decision Date | 07 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 52441,52441 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Larry M. RIVERA, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Gerald R. Ralph and Joseph W. Zeller, Asst., Attys. Gen., and Ray Yarham, Atlantic, County Atty., for appellant.
Harold DeKay, Atlantic, for appellee.
Defendant was accused of prohibited passing in violation of Section 321.304(3), Code, 1966, in that he 'did overtake and pass another motor vehicle where yellow line and sign were so placed to prohibit same contrary to the statutes.' He moved to dismiss on the ground that Section 321.304(3) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power. The court sustained the motion. The state appeals. The pertinent Code sections are:
'321.304. Prohibited passing. No vehicle shall, in overtaking and passing another vehicle or at any other time, be driven to the left side of the roadway under the following conditions: * * *
* * *'
The question to be determined is the constitutionality of Section 321.304(3) set forth above. Reference to other statutory provisions will be made where necessary.
I. Regularly enacted statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Tice v. Wilmington Chemical Corporation, Iowa, 141 N.W.2d 616. The power to declare legislation unconstitutional is one which courts exercise with great caution, and only when such conclusion is unavoidable. Cook v. Hannah, 230 Iowa 249, 297 N.W. 262.
In Danner v. Hass, 257 Iowa 654, 662, 134 N.W.2d 534, 540, we said:
II. With these prior pronouncements in mind we proceed. Wall v. County Board of Education, 249 Iowa 209, 228, 86 N.W.2d 231, 242, states:
Thus, the legislature may delegate to boards and commissions the power to carry out the purposes of the statute provided proper guidelines are legislatively supplied. Defendant concedes this to be the law but contends the legislative guidelines have not been adequately supplied here. We disagree.
III. In addition to the standards provided in Section 321.304 the legislature has provided in Section 321.303 that: 'No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken.' Additionally the legislature directed the state highway commission to adopt a manual of uniform traffic control devices. In Section 321.304 the legislature clearly contemplates that among those devices will be signs, or distinctive lines on the pavement, or both, along the highway telling the motorist to keep to the right. The pavement lines are, of course, the 'yellow line' so familiar to every motorist.
We consider that the sections of Chapter 321 cited herein are in Pari materia within the meaning of Lewis Consolidated School District of Cass County v. Johnston, 256 Iowa. 236, 127 N.W.2d 118, and cases cited in that opinion. In the Lewis case we held that a legislative intent, to make standards set up in other sections of the school laws applicable to Section 257.18, did not appear. We find to the contrary here. The interrelation of Sections 321.252, 321.253, 321.303 and 321.304(3) makes application of the in Pari materia principle unavoidable.
It is the legislature, not the commission, that has made it a crime to cross a yellow line while passing. The commission is directed to place the devices where necessary to carry out the provisions of the chapter. Local authorities are authorized to do likewise on highways under their jurisdiction. Each does so under the guidelines found in Chapter 321. It is well within the power of the legislature to prohibit violation of the visual, clearcut, necessary traffic regulation.
IV. Defendant argues: 'The evil in Section 321.304(3) is that after mentioning every conceivable situation where passing might be unsafe, the legislature then went on to take subsection 3 onto Section 321.304.' We look at the problem differently. We may concede (without deciding) the broad premise that the legislature covered every conceivable situation where passing might be unsafe. The areas thus covered by the legislature are the very guidelines necessary to the grant of authority. The legislature then said: 'Where these markers are in place it is against the law to disobey them.' It is against the law to disobey the prohibitions against passing where vision is limited to less than 700 feet, or where approaching within 100 feet of an intersection, or any of the other listed prohibitions. To aid all motorists to obey such laws special directive signs are provided by the state. The signs aid the careful and serve as an additional warning for those who may be less careful.
If, as later claimed by the defendant, the commission can, and does, place the directing signs at places not covered by subsections 1 and 2 of 321.304, the guidelines may be found in other sections of Chapter 321. Section 321.303 prohibits passing unless the way is clear for a sufficient distance to be done without interfering with oncoming traffic. This is a broader criterion that also guides the commission. Yet we find it to be sufficiently definite to serve as a basis for the grant of authority contained in Section 321.304(3).
If, under a given situation, the judgment of the highway...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee Enterprises, Inc. v. Iowa State Tax Commission
...to suspend a driver's license when certain facts were shown, as not an unlawful delegation of legislative power, and in State v. Rivera, Iowa, 149 N.W.2d 127 (1967), we upheld the delegation of authority to place signs prohibiting passing on the left thereof by the highway We are satisfied ......
-
F.K., Mother v Ia Dist Ct for Polk County
...L. Ed. 60 (1803), is one that courts exercise with great caution, and only when such conclusion is unavoidable. State v. Rivera, 260 Iowa 320, 322-23, 149 N.W.2d 127, 129 (1967). When we are asked to address the constitutionality of a statute we are obliged to accord it every presumption of......
-
Callender v. Skiles
...(Iowa 1986). Additionally, we traditionally exercise great caution in declaring legislation unconstitutional. State v. Rivera, 260 Iowa 320, 322-23, 149 N.W.2d 127, 129 (1967); Stoner McCray Sys. v. City of Des Moines, 247 Iowa 1313, 1323, 78 N.W.2d 843, 847 (1956) (holding city ordinance, ......
-
Cedar Rapids Steel Transp., Inc. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission
...presumption of regularity and impartiality attends all official actions of defendant commission. Code section 622.56; State v. Rivera, 260 Iowa 320, 149 N.W.2d 127, 131; City of Cherokee v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 157 Iowa 73, 77, 137 N.W. 1053; 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Pro......