--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98-003
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CLINT KEY,
Defendant and Appellant,
and
98-007
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BEN MARTIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
YMCA Youth Governor Clint Key and Lieutenant Governor Ben Martin got together this past winter at Camp Child for a weekend dedicated to planning their legislative program for the 1998 YMCA Youth Legislature. Camp Child is privately owned by the YMCA, but borders forest service land and a county road. Furthermore, the YMCA allows publicly-used trails to cross the property, which trails are jointly used by snowmobilers and cross country skiers all winter long.
After a six-hour session of scheming and devising, Governor Key suggested to Lieutenant Governor Martin that they blow off some steam by renting snowmobiles for the rest of the afternoon. Martin was a little nervous, as he had never ridden on a snowmobile. Key reassured him, telling him that he learned to snowmobile before he could even walk, and that he would show Martin the ropes.
As the were renting the snowmobiles, Martin reminded Key that--as a result of legislation passed by the 1997 YMCA Youth Legislature--they also needed to rent helmets. "Helmets are for sissies," Key responded. Martin replied, "Fine, call me what you want. Helmets for snowmobilers are not just a good idea, it's the law."
Key and Martin took the snowmobiles back to Camp Child. After showing Martin the instruments and the basics, Key said, "Okay, Ben, I'm going where the powder is deep and the hills are steep! You can either join me or stay on the trail!" Martin replied "Go ahead. I'm going to stay on the trail until I get the hang of this thing." Martin slowly eased off the clutch and put on the throttle, taking the snow sleigh up to approximately 23 miles per hour. Just as he felt he was getting the hang of it, he saw the Winter Olympic Nordic Skiing Team, out for a training exercise directly ahead of him. "Watch out!" he yelled, since he really hadn't figured our how to stop yet. The skiers gracefully glided off the trail, and Martin passed.
Meanwhile, from the highway, a Powell County deputy sheriff sat in her police cruiser observing the two through a pair of binoculars. After watching their shenanigans for a few minutes, she left the highway and went onto the YMCA Camp property. She gave Key a citation for violating the mandatory helmet law, and cited Martin for violation of §§ 23-2-362 and 61-8-303, MCA, the "basic rule" speed limit as it applies to snowmobilers.
Despite their best arguments, the Justice of the Peace found both Key and Martin guilty as charged. Key and Martin both appealed to the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County, arguing that the respective statutes they had been convicted of violating are unconstitutional. Key argued that HB 63 violates his right to privacy, especially in view of the circumstances that he was operating his snowmobile on private property. Martin argued that the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit established under the "basic rule" violates his right to due process and is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him while riding his snowmobile at 23 m.p.h. on the publicly used skiing trail.
Citing the presumption that any statute enacted by the legislature is constitutional, the District Court upheld Key's and Martin's convictions. Both Key and Martin appealed to the YMCA Model Supreme Court, where their cases have been consolidated.
ISSUES
1. Did the District Court err by ruling, in Key's case, that HB 63 does not violate the right of privacy guaranteed under the Montana Constitution?
2. Did the District Court err by holding, in Martin's case, that the "basic rule" speed limit is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to a snowmobiler on a ski trail?
CASES AND RELATED MATERIALS
Presumption of constitutionality of statutes
Fallon County v. State, 231 Mont. 443, 753 P.2d 338 (1988)
Issue 1
Article II, Section 10, Montana Constitution
1997 YMCA Youth Legislature HB 63
Gryczan v. State, ___ Mont. ___, ___, 942 P. 2d 112, 120-26 (1997) (for a general discussion of the right to privacy in Montana)
State v. Betts, 252 N.E. 2d 866 (Franklin, Ohio Mun. Ct. 1969)
Picou v. Gillum, 874 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1989)
Robotham v. State, 488 N.W. 2d 533 (Neb. 1992)
Issue 2
Article II, Section 17, Montana Constitution
Section 23-2-632, MCA
Section 61-1-201, MCA
Section 61-1-202, MCA
Section 61-8-303, MCA
State v. Nye, ___ Mont. ___, 943 P. 2d 96 (1997) (For a general discussion on vagueness as viewed in Montana Courts)
State v. Campbell, 196 A. 2d 131 (R.I. 1963)
People v. Firth, 146 N. E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1957)
State v. Rawlins, 623 So. 2d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Bilbrey v. State, 331 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. 1985)