 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sobacki3/9/2000
basis test in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-261 (1961), as follows:
he Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others. The constitutional safeguard is offended only if the classification rest on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. State legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality. A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.
. Sobacki argues that a fundamental right is implicated because the current Wis. Stat. § 346.61 removes a defense that was available before it was amended by 1995 Wis. Act. 127, § 1. Before that amendment, Sobacki contends, relying on City of Kenosha v. Phillips, 142 Wis. 2d 549, 552, 419 N.W.2d 236 (1988), § 346.61 did not extend the application of Wis. Stat. §§ 346.62 to 346.64 to premises that were not held out to the public. Since the private nature of premises provided to tenants of rental housing in buildings of four or more units is no longer a defense under the current § 346.61, Sobacki argues that her due process right to present a defense is violated by the statute.
. There is no merit to the argument. The due process right Sobacki refers to is the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the charges by offering testimony and argument in her defense. See State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 354, 507 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1993). Sobacki has not been denied the opportunity to present argument or testimony. Rather her complaint is that the argument she wishes to present no longer has a basis in law because the legislature has amended the statute.
. Since there is no fundamental interest or suspect class involved, we apply the rational basis test. Sobacki contends the statute prosecutes persons who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated on rental premises, but does not prosecute persons who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated on non-rental premises, and this distinction has no rational relation to the prevention or prosecution of drunk driving .
. We disagree and conclude the statute meets the rational basis test. The statute treats persons differently only insofar as the persons are operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on different types of premises. The legislature could reasonably conclude that operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated was more of a safety hazard on a parking lot of rental housing with four or more units than on the parking lot of rental housing with fewer units, or on the parking lot for a residence that was not rental housing. The legislature could reasonably assume that in the former situation, there are more people and more motor vehicles on the premises than in the latter two situations, and therefore a greater safety hazard when vehicles are operated by persons who are intoxicated. There is no question the State has a legitimate interest in protecting persons from injury by intoxicated drivers. Therefore, as did the trial court, we conclude that the distinction Sobacki challenges is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
By the Court. -- Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. § Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|