NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal
correction before publication in the Pacific
Reporter. Readers are requested to bring
typographical or other formal errors to the
attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska
99501, in order that corrections may be made
prior to permanent publication.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
STEVEN K. REXFORD, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-6195
Appellant, ) Trial Court No. 2BA-95-228 Cr
)
v. ) O P I N I O N
)
STATE OF ALASKA, )
)
Appellee. ) [No. 1541 - July 25, 1997]
______________________________)
Appeal from the District Court, Second Judi
cial District, Barrow, Karen R. Hegyi,
Magistrate.
Appearances: Dale Whitney, Assistant Public
Defender, Barrow, and Barbara K. Brink,
Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Eric A. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals,
Anchorage, and Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney
General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, Mannheimer,
Judge, and Joannides, District Court Judge.*
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Steven K. Rexford was arrested for possessing or
consuming alcohol while under the age of 21, AS 4.16.050. Based
on this arrest, the Department of Public Safety commenced
administrative proceedings against Rexford's driver's license
under AS 28.15.183. Rexford's license was ultimately revoked in
these administrative proceedings.
In the meantime, Rexford's prosecution for minor
consuming alcohol was still pending in the district court.
Following the administrative revocation of his driver's license,
Rexford asked the district court to dismiss the criminal
prosecution. Rexford contended that the administrative
revocation of his license was a "punishment" for purposes of the
double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions.1
He argued that because he had already been punished once for his
violation of the liquor laws, it would be illegal to punish him
again for the same conduct.
Rexford acknowledged that this court had rejected a
similar argument in State v. Zerkel, 900 P.2d 744 (Alaska App.
1995). In Zerkel, we held that the administrative revocation of
a driver's license based on a breath test result or a breath test
refusal did not constitute "punishment" for double jeopardy
purposes. Rexford argued, however, that Zerkel was
distinguishable from his case because, unlike the defendants in
Zerkel, Rexford had not engaged in any act of driving C only
drinking. Rexford argued that the Department of Public Safety
had no valid administrative interest in regulating or restricting
his ability to drive based on his act of drinking, when that
drinking was unconnected to the operation of a motor vehicle.
Magistrate Karen R. Hegyi agreed with Rexford that the
issue was whether a minor's act of consuming liquor "bears a
direct relation to the government's regulatory goals or to the
proper administration or enforcement of the regulatory scheme".
Zerkel, 900 P.2d at 757. However, Magistrate Hegyi concluded
that a minor's consumption of alcohol did, in fact, bear "a
direct relation to the government's proper regulatory goal of
making the highways safe". Magistrate Hegyi wrote,
Studies have shown that young drivers
who drink are a danger not only to themselves
but to everyone else. Teenagers have the
highest alcohol-involved fatal accident rate
of any age group. Alcohol-related traffic
deaths are the number one killer of fifteen-
to twenty-four-year-olds, and they account
for approximately fifty percent of all
teenage deaths. In addition, sixteen- to
twenty-four-year-old drivers represent twenty
percent of licensed drivers in the United
States and [they account for fewer] than
twenty percent of total miles driven, yet
they account for forty-two percent of all
fatal alcohol-related deaths. See Johnson v.
State Hearing Examiner's Office, 838 P.2d
158, 182 (Wy. 1992), (dissenting opinion of
Justice Brown), citing Rosenthal, The Mininum
Drinking Age for Young People, 92 Dickenson
L. Rev. 649, 654-660 (1987-88).
"Memorandum Order Denying Motion to Dismiss",
pp. 6-7 (with some minor editorial changes).
The magistrate therefore denied Rexford's
motion to dismiss, and Rexford was
subsequently convicted of minor consuming.
Rexford has appealed the district
court's decision, but he has elected to rely
on his trial court memorandum rather than
file a brief in this court. This is his
right under Alaska Appellate Rule 217(f).
However, Rexford's trial memorandum was
written before Magistrate Hegyi issued her
decision, and Rexford's choice not to file a
brief means that he has presented no rebuttal
to Magistrate Hegyi's findings regarding the
valid administrative purpose for revoking
the driver's licenses of underage drinkers.2
3
Based on the district court's
findings, we too conclude that there is a
valid regulatory purpose in restricting or
revoking the driver's licenses of underage
drinkers. We therefore hold that
administrative license revocations under AS
28.15.183 are not "punishment" for double
jeopardy purposes. A minor whose license has
been revoked in an administrative proceeding
under that statute may still be prosecuted
for the offense of minor consuming.
The judgement of the district court
is AFFIRMED.
_______________________________
* Sitting by assignment of the chief justice made pursuant
to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution.
1 See the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and Article I, Section 9 of the Alaska Constitution.
2 In his trial memorandum, Rexford asserts in conclusory
fashion that the State could have no valid purpose in
taking administrative action against the driver's
license of an underage drinker. Rexford does not
anticipate or respond to the findings made by
Magistrate Hegyi regarding the disproportionate danger
that teenage drinking poses to highway safety.
3 Rexford's decision not to file a brief also means that he
has failed to address the fact that one of the cases he
relied on heavily in his memorandum, United States v.
$405,089.23 in U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.
1994), was reversed by the United States Supreme Court
four months before Rexford filed this appeal. See
United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2135,
135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996).
