may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Marty James Herman, petitioner,
Commissioner of Public Safety,
Filed June 15, 1999
Steele District Court
File No. C598396
Jeffrey B. Ring, The Interchange Tower, Suite 1690, 600 South Highway 169, Minneapolis, MN 55426 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Jeffrey F. Lebowski, Michael R. Pahl, Assistant Attorneys General, 525 Park Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55103 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Short, Judge.
Marty James Herman's driver's license was revoked pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1998). After conducting a hearing under Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 6 (1998), the trial court sustained revocation of Herman's license. On appeal, Herman argues: (1) he did not have physical control of the vehicle; and (2) amendments to the implied consent law violate his right against self-incrimination, his right to due process, and the separation of powers doctrine. We affirm.
The trial court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Berge v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 374 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Minn. 1985). 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.
Herman argues he was a passenger who relinquished control of his vehicle to a designated driver. But the record demonstrates: (1) Herman hired a stranger to drive him and an intoxicated companion from a restaurant to a convenience store; (2) Herman was found intoxicated in the front seat of his parked pick-up truck; (3) the keys were within his reach inside the truck; (4) Herman did not explain to the officer who approached him why he was sitting intoxicated in the parked truck; and (5) Herman and his intoxicated passenger planned to go to a motel for the night. Although there is conflicting evidence, the trial court could reasonably find that Herman was in physical control of his vehicle. See LaBeau v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 412 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Minn. App. 1987) (finding revocation justified where intoxicated driver was sitting in driver's seat of truck and keys were in easy reach within glove compartment); Palme v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 366 N.W.2d 343, 344-45 (Minn. App. 1985) (upholding revocation where intoxicated person was found sleeping in truck even though he never planned to drive it), review denied (Minn. June 24, 1985).