Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act
| Publication year | 1993 |
| Pages | 20 |
Gary L. Johnson, J.
The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.[1]
There are two competing interpretative principles in Utah constitutional jurisprudence. The first principle is that our State Constitution is in no fashion a mere grant of power to the Legislature, rather it operates solely as a limitation of last resort on that assembly. The Legislature has plenary power to perform any act or execute any function not prohibited by our Constitution.[2] The second principle recognizes that the purpose of our Constitution is to provide an orderly foundation for our government and to serve as a constraint on the exercise of legislative power. This principle emphasizes that legislative prerogative must be exercised within the framework of the State Constitution. If a statutory enactment contravenes any provision of the Utah Constitution, that statute is invalid.[3]
It is the contention of this author that §41-6-186 of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act[4], concerning the inadmissibility of evidence of the failure to wear seat belts, violates Article IV, Section I and Article VIII, Section IV of the Utah Constitution and is invalid.[5] Within the interpretative parameters set forth above, this analysis will present a state constitutional framework for assessing the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act (hereinafter "Seat Belt Act"). The role of the Legislature, the separation of powers doctrine and the power of judiciary as it relates to court procedure and evidence will be examined and compared. After cataloging the constitutional infirmities of § 41-6-186, the analysis will address considerations relating to the admissibility of evidence of the failure to wear seat belts.
THE LEGISLATURE AS SOVEREIGN
Article I, Section II of the Utah Constitution expresses a fundamental principle essential to every democracy: "All political power is inherent in the people. . . ." Under the Utah Constitution, the Legislature, representing the people, has all of the original power of the sovereign to enact laws of genera] applicability, to provide normative standards of conduct for society and to provide for the organization and operation of the government.[6] A statute enacted by the Utah Legislature carries with it the presumption that it is valid, and that the words and phrases were chosen advisedly to express legislative intent.[7]
It is not the prerogative of the courts of our state on their own initiative to strike down statutes as unconstitutional, regardless of the effect of the statute or the court's own personal proclivities. Like their federal cousins, our judges must wait for litigants to come forth and challenge the offending legislation.[8] Further, it is a universal rule of constitutional interpretation that when there is more than one alternative to the interpretation of a statute, the court is obligated to adopt any reasonable construction of a statute that will assure its constitutionality in preference to any construction that would render its constitutionality doubtful.
A statute enacted by the Utah Legislature should not be declared unconstitutional "unless it is so unclear or confused as to be wholly beyond reason, or inoperable, or it contravenes some basic constitutional right."[9] However, the Utah courts, for all the presumptive validity of legislation, cannot shirk their duty to find a statute unconstitutional when it conflicts with a provision of the Utah Constitution.[10] Further, the legislature cannot narrow or otherwise alter a constitutional provision by legislation.[11]
Section 41-6-186 of the Seat Belt Act, stating that evidence of the failure to wear seat belts is inadmissible, contravenes two provisions of the Utah Constitution: Article V, Section I, which provides for the separation of powers of the three branches of government, and Article VIII, Section IV, which provides a constitutional mandate for the Utah Supreme Court to establish and implement rules of evidence.
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
Article V, Section I of the Utah Constitution provides as follows:
The powers of the government of the State of Utah shall be divided into three distinct departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.
Under the Utah Constitution, the doctrine of separation of powers is explicitly set forth, unlike the federal constitution where it is left to be deduced from the general structure of that document. The historical purpose behind the separation of powers provision is to ensure the "independence of each of the branches of state government so that no one branch becomes a depository for a concentration of governmental powers."[12]
The separation of powers provision in Article V is a cornerstone of the Utah Constitution. As Justice Stewart noted in his concurring opinion in Matheson v. Ferry: "The framers of the Constitution considered the principle embodied in Article V, Section I to be of such importance that they wrote that provision to prevent its erosion by implication, strained constructions, or any means which would have the effect of enfeebling that great, over-arching principle of constitutional government."[13] Exceptions, however, to the general principle, are allowed in cases "expressly directed" or "permitted" by the Constitution itself.
POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY
Article VIII, Section IV of the Utah...
To continue reading
Request your trial