Daly v. State, Department of Highways

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Daly v. State, Department of Highways

207 N.W.2d 541, 296 Minn. 238, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1186

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 18, 1973

Docket43779

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 N.W.2d 541 (Daly v. State, Department of Highways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daly v. State, Department of Highways, 207 N.W.2d 541, 296 Minn. 238, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1186 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal challenges an order of the commissioner of public safety revoking a driver’s license pursuant to the provisions of the implied-consent law, Minn. St. 169.123. Both the municipal and district courts have affirmed the revocation order. We do also.

Appellant raises a number of issues concerning the constitutionality of the implied-consent law. We reject all of these contentions. (a) The statute, providing as it does for judicial review, meets due process objections. See, Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. ed. 2d 90 (1971). (b) The statute does not violate the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment or the self-incrimination provision of the Fifth Amendment. See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. ed. 2d 908 (1966). (c) Nor does the statute violate the prohibition in U. S. Const, art. 1, § 10, against bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment upon a designated person, or easily ascertainable members of a group, for an alleged crime without a judicial trial. United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 90 L. ed. 1252 (1946). The revocation of a license under Minn. St. 169.123 is not punishment for a crime. See, Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 126 N. W. 2d 778 (1964). Further, the licensee is provided with the right to judicial review. See, Minn. St. 169.123, subds. 6 and 7. (d) Appellant does not have standing to argue that permitting additional tests denies indigents equal protection of the laws, because there is nothing in the record suggesting that appellant was indigent or financially unable to obtain additional tests. See, Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130, 109 N. W. 2d 336 (1961).

*240 Appellant did not, as he claims, have a common-law right guaranteed by the law of Minnesota and the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to be taken before the nearest magistrate immediately after his arrest. See, State v. Madison, 281 Minn. 170, 160 N. W. 2d 680 (1968), certiorari denied, 893 U. S. 1102, 89 S. Ct. 904, 21 L. ed. 2d 796 (1969); State v. Carmichael, 275 Minn. 148, 145 N. W. 2d 554 (1966).

Appellant also contends that the peace officer’s instructions concerning his right to additional tests were inadequate. We need not reach this issue since appellant, a former attorney, has admitted that he knew through his legal experience that he had a right to have additional tests.

Appellant’s final argument, that he should have been permitted to be represented in court by Mr. Gordon C. Peterson, has no merit. Mr. Peterson is not licensed to practice law in this state.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This appeal challenges an order of the commissioner of public safety revoking a driver’s license pursuant to the provisions of the implied-consent law, Minn. St. 169.123. Both the municipal and district courts have affirmed the revocation order. We do also.

Appellant raises a number of issues concerning the constitutionality of the implied-consent law. We reject all of these contentions. (a) The statute, providing as it does for judicial review, meets due process objections. See, Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. ed. 2d 90 (1971). (b) The statute does not violate the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment or the self-incrimination provision of the Fifth Amendment. See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. ed. 2d 908 (1966). (c) Nor does the statute violate the prohibition in U. S. Const, art. 1, § 10, against bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment upon a designated person, or easily ascertainable members of a group, for an alleged crime without a judicial trial. United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 90 L. ed. 1252 (1946). The revocation of a license under Minn. St. 169.123 is not punishment for a crime. See, Anderson v. Commissioner of Highways, 267 Minn. 308, 126 N. W. 2d 778 (1964). Further, the licensee is provided with the right to judicial review. See, Minn. St. 169.123, subds. 6 and 7. (d) Appellant does not have standing to argue that permitting additional tests denies indigents equal protection of the laws, because there is nothing in the record suggesting that appellant was indigent or financially unable to obtain additional tests. See, Lott v. Davidson, 261 Minn. 130, 109 N. W. 2d 336 (1961).

*240 Appellant did not, as he claims, have a common-law right guaranteed by the law of Minnesota and the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to be taken before the nearest magistrate immediately after his arrest. See, State v. Madison, 281 Minn. 170, 160 N. W. 2d 680 (1968), certiorari denied, 893 U. S. 1102, 89 S. Ct. 904, 21 L. ed. 2d 796 (1969); State v. Carmichael, 275 Minn. 148, 145 N. W. 2d 554 (1966).

Appellant also contends that the peace officer’s instructions concerning his right to additional tests were inadequate. We need not reach this issue since appellant, a former attorney, has admitted that he knew through his legal experience that he had a right to have additional tests.

Appellant’s final argument, that he should have been permitted to be represented in court by Mr. Gordon C. Peterson, has no merit. Mr. Peterson is not licensed to practice law in this state.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 N.W.2d 541, 296 Minn. 238, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daly-v-state-department-of-highways-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack