|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1982
|
|
|
|
|
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
|
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bill would violate the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
my view, these exceptions do not render the bill
unconstitutional.
Legislation such as that proposed in House Bill 1518
"carries with it a presumption of rationality that can only
be overcome by a clear showing of arbitrariness and
irrationality." See Hodel v. Indiana, 101 S.Ct. 2376,
2386-87 (1981). Under this "rational basis" equal
protection standard, courts "consistently defer to
legislative determinations as to the desirability of
particular statutory discriminations." City of New Orleans
v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1967). And when there are
"plausible reasons" for legislative action, judicial inquiry
"is at an end." United States Railroad Retirement Board v.
Fritz, 101 S.Ct. 453, 461 (1980). In my opinion, the
exceptions contained in House Bill 1518 meet this equal
protection standard.
The apparent purpose of House Bill 1518 is to prohibit
the consumption of alcohol at regularly operated business
locations open to the general public -- particularly places
of public entertainment. It is clear that a concern for
public order alone is sufficient to justify such a
prohibition. Moreover, the exceptions contained in the bill
are not inconsistent with these purposes.
The exceptions are for places not attended by large
numbers of people (e.g. individual hotel rooms), for places
open to small, select groups -- not the public at large
(e.g., premises of a patriotic organization), and places
operating only on an infrequent basis (e.g., a catering
establishment).*/
It is plausible that the concern for public order would
not be as great when alcoholic beverages are consumed at
these select locations rather than regularly operated places
of entertainment open to the public at large.
For all of these reasons, it is my view that H.B. 1518
is constitutional and not violative of equal protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
Robert A. Zarnoch
Assistant Attorney General
Counsel to the General Assembly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*/ Even a catering establishment is more likely to be
attended by selective groups and guests rather than patrons
from the public at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|