Opinion
No. C7-99-73.
Filed June 8, 1999.
Appeal from the District Court, Pine County, File No. C698693.
Samuel A. McCloud, Kelly Vince Griffitts, Carson Heefner, (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Jeffrey F. Lebowski, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Pahl, Assistant Attorney General, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Brent Allen Danielson's driving privileges were revoked pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1998). After the trial court sustained the revocation of his driver's license, Danielson appealed, arguing the implied consent statute is unconstitutional because: (1) the petition requirements violate his right against self-incrimination; (2) the discovery provisions violate due process and the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the proceedings require additional due process safeguards. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169.123, subd. 5c(b)(3) (1998) (requiring statement of facts on petition for review of license revocation), 169.123, subd. 5c(d) (1998) (defining limited discovery available in license revocation proceedings), 169.121, subd. 3 (1998) (providing for enhanced criminal penalties for driving while intoxicated if defendant has prior license revocation). Because Danielson does not have standing to challenge the statutes, we affirm.
DECISION
Review of the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Estate of Jones by Blume v. Kvamme , 529 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn. 1995). As a threshold matter, we must determine whether a party has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute. See City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele , 291 N.W.2d 386, 393 (Minn. 1980) (requiring party to show direct, personal harm to establish standing). If there is standing, a party must then overcome a presumption that the statute is constitutional. Miller Brewing Co. v. State , 284 N.W.2d 353, 356 (Minn. 1979). We will uphold a statute unless the challenging party demonstrates a constitutional infirmity beyond a reasonable doubt. Kvamme , 529 N.W.2d at 337.
Danielson argues he has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the discovery provision of the implied consent statute. But the record demonstrates: (1) the Commissioner of Public Safety advised Danielson of the possible witnesses and documents available through discovery; (2) Danielson received all documents identified as discoverable in the statute; and (3) Danielson chose not to dispute or litigate the facts contained in the record. Under these circumstances, Danielson has not been harmed by the limited discovery and lacks standing to constitutionally challenge Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 5c(d). See Kennedy v. Carlson , 544 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1996) (noting hypothetical injuries do not establish standing); Wurtele , 291 N.W.2d at 393 (requiring party to show direct and personal harm to establish standing).
Moreover, Danielson failed to establish standing, or even address the issue, as to the other two constitutional arguments. See Melina v. Chaplin , 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982) (concluding issues not briefed on appeal are waived); Wurtele , 291 N.W.2d at 393 (recognizing challenging party must show direct and personal harm). Under these circumstances, we do not reach the merits of Danielson's constitutional challenges and affirm the trial court's order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license. See Wurtele , 291 N.W.2d at 393 (requiring party to establish standing before addressing constitutional issues).