## Facts

- Arizona voters approved Proposition 201, adding A.R.S. § 17-301(D), which criminalized use of steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, and similar devices on public land, subject to limited exceptions for governmental employees or agents acting officially for specified purposes.
- The initiative’s stated aims included preventing cruelty to wildlife and protecting people, pets, and other animals using public land from risks posed by leghold traps.
- Kurt Bonnewell, Lauralu Harkins, Lee P. Hulsey, and Walter John Randall set leghold traps on Arizona public land.
- The defendants admitted setting the traps but argued the statute was unconstitutional because it (1) was an impermissible special or local law and (2) irrationally treated public-land trapping differently from private-land trapping and permitted certain governmental uses.
- A justice court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, found them guilty after a bench trial, and fined each defendant $150.
- The superior court affirmed on appellate review, and the defendants sought review in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 17-301(D), banning specified traps on public land with limited governmental exceptions, is an unconstitutional special or local law under the Arizona Constitution.
2. Whether the statute violates equal protection under the Arizona and United States Constitutions by distinguishing between public- and private-land trapping and between private trappers and certain governmental actors.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and upheld A.R.S. § 17-301(D).
- The statute was held to be a permissible general law, not an unconstitutional special or local law.
- The statute was held not to violate equal protection under rational-basis review.
- The court applied a presumption of constitutionality and required defendants to show unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt; constitutional questions were reviewed de novo.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is not a prohibited special or local law when it operates uniformly on a reasonably defined class related to the statute’s objective and does not create a closed, immutable class.
- A location-based classification (regulating conduct on public land) may be a valid basis for general legislation when tied to objectives such as public safety and animal welfare.
- Where no suspect class or fundamental right is involved, equal protection challenges are assessed under rational-basis review; a law survives if rationally related to any legitimate governmental purpose.
- The state may address problems incrementally and may regulate public land more stringently than private land if the distinction is rationally related to legitimate interests.
- Exceptions for governmental employees or agents acting officially may be rational where those uses are limited, supervised, and connected to public safety or wildlife management purposes.

## Conclusion

Arizona’s voter-enacted prohibition on leghold traps and similar devices on public land, with limited official-use exceptions, was upheld because it applied uniformly to the class of persons trapping on public land and rationally furthered legitimate interests in animal welfare and public safety, defeating special-law and equal protection challenges.


State v. Bonnewell, 196 Ariz. 592, 2 P.3d 682 (Ct. App. 1999)