Petitioner/appellant Charles Allen appeals from the denial of his petition for special action which sought dismissal of two traffic citations, one for driving under the influence and one for driving with a blood alcohol content greater than .10 per cent. Because the violations occurred on private property, Allen contends the arresting officers lacked jurisdiction to issue the citations. We affirm.
On May 2, 1986, at 1:40 a.m., Allen was stopped by two Oro Valley police officers who had observed him driving on the wrong side of the road in La Reserve, an Estes Company subdivision development project. It is undisputed that La Reserve was private property at the time, although
Allen contends that the court lacks jurisdiction because A.R.S. § 28-692 is restricted by § 28-104 to offenses that occur on a public highway or roadway. The pertinent provisions of § 28-692 read as follows:
In order to determine the meaning of the phrase "within this state," Allen argues that one must first look to § 28-621 and then to § 28-104. Section 28-621 states as follows:
Section 28-692 is part of Article 5. Section 28-104 refers to the department of transportation, which is created by § 28-103, and reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
We are unable to follow the logic suggested by appellant with regard to the applicability of § 28-104. The department of transportation was established to "provide for an integrated and balanced state transportation system." A.R.S. § 28-103. Under § 28-104, the department is charged with enforcing motor vehicle statutes. The motor vehicle statutes, however, are those pertaining to registration of vehicles and the licensing of drivers. Enforcement of the DUI statute, on the other hand, is the duty of police officers pursuant to the following definition in § 28-602(12): "an officer authorized to direct or regulate traffic or make arrests for violations of traffic regulations."
Therefore, in determining whether an officer has jurisdiction to arrest for a violation of § 28-692 on private property, we need only look to the language of §§ 28-692 and 28-621. Under § 28-692, it is unlawful for a person to drive "any vehicle within this state" while under the influence of alcohol. Under § 28-621, the provisions of § 28-692 apply "throughout the state." There is nothing in the language of either statute, when read according to its common, everyday meaning, which restricts jurisdiction in a DUI case to a public highway. See State v. Wise, 137 Ariz. 468, 671 P.2d 909 (1983); State v. Carter, 123 Ariz. 524, 601 P.2d 287 (1979); A.R.S. § 1-213.
Allen next contends that application of § 28-692 to private property is unconstitutional because it violates article 4, part 2, section 13 of the Arizona Constitution. That section reads as follows:
Because the title of the chapter of which § 28-692 is a part reads "Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways," Allen contends the chapter cannot also embrace the regulation of traffic on private property.
We also find that the constitutional provision refers only to titles of acts enacted by the legislature and not to titles of sections or articles in the code.
In re Lewkowitz, 69 Ariz. 347, 351, 213 P.2d 690, 693, reversed on other grounds, 70 Ariz. 325, 220 P.2d 229 (1950), quoting Wilmington Trust Co. v. Highfield, 34 Del. 394, 400, 153 A. 864, 867 (1931). We do not find the statute unconstitutional.
Allen's final argument is that the state lacks a compelling interest sufficient for it to exercise control over an individual's private property in applying § 28-692 to other than a public highway. He contends that application of that section to private property somehow portends the police entering a person's home because it is foreseeable that someone inside may consume alcohol and then enter a highway. We are unable to follow Allen's logic, since a prerequisite to the application of the statute is that a person who is intoxicated must also be in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Allen also argues that "[t]he state has by implication recognized the diminishing state interest as one moves away from the actual traffic lanes" of highways, citing cases such as State v. Zavala, 136 Ariz. 356, 666 P.2d 456 (1983); State v. Webb, 78 Ariz. 8, 274 P.2d 338 (1954) and State v. Superior Court, County of Greenlee, 153 Ariz. 119, 735 P.2d 149 (App. 1987). In those cases, the issue was whether or not the person arrested was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle and therefore subject to the statute. In none of those cases did the court address the issue of whether § 28-692 constituted a legitimate exercise of the police power.
The state's police power permits it to enact laws "to protect the lives, health, safety, morals and general welfare of society." State v. Harold, 74 Ariz. at 215-16, 246 P.2d at 181. If it can be shown that a statute is directed at a legitimate legislative purpose and that the means by which the statute seeks to achieve that purpose are reasonable, then the statute is a proper exercise of the police power. Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971). In State v. Harold, the Supreme Court indicated that the predecessor to § 28-692, prohibiting "incompetent drivers of motor vehicles, arising from any cause whatsoever, from operating automobiles upon public highways or elsewhere," was a legitimate exercise of
We find no error in the trial court's ruling. Affirmed.
LIVERMORE, P.J., and ROLL, J., concur.