The equal protection clause of the Nevada Constitution is interpreted using the same standard as the federal equal protection clause.
A defendant convicted of selling controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school challenges the statutory sentence enhancement as violating equal protection principles by being an arbitrary measurement. The court applies the rational basis test, determining that the Nevada Constitution’s equal protection standard mirrors the federal standard. The court finds that the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from the harms associated with drug use and trafficking. Because the 1,000-foot radius bears a rational relationship to this legitimate governmental interest, the classification is not arbitrary or unconstitutionally vague. The court affirms the conviction and the mandatory sentence enhancement.
904 P.2d at 1029 Determining the standard of equal protection review6 citing cases[T]he standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution [is] the same as the federal standard . . . .
- Vickers (tracey) Vs. Dir., 2018 NV 91 (Nev. 2018).published ([T]he standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution [is] the same as the federal standard . . . .)
- Vickers v. Dzurenda, 433 P.3d 306 (Nev. 2018).published ([T]he standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution [is] the same as the federal standard . . . .)
- Underwood v. Oriol, No. 3:23-cv-00029 (D. Nev. July 12, 2023).“to be the same as the federal standard and ha[s] held that where no suspect classification or fundamental right is involved, the role of th[e] court is to 25 determine whether the classification bears a rational relatio…”
- State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).published(holding “that the State has a compelling interest in protecting its children from the evils that follow both the use and trafficking of drugs)
- Derosa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 985 P.2d 157 (Nev. 1999).published“requires that state laws which provide different treatment to different classes of people have a rational basis to a legitimate governmental interest”
111 Nev. at 1304 “the standard of the equal protection clause of the nevada constitution is the same as the federal standard . . . .”2 citing cases
- Vickers (tracey) Vs. Dir., 2018 NV 91 (Nev. 2018).published “[T]he standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution [is] the same as the federal standard . . . .”
- Vickers v. Dzurenda, 433 P.3d 306 (Nev. 2018).published ([T]he standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution [is] the same as the federal standard....)
v.
The State of Nevada, Respondent
OPINION
Per Curiam:Maria Angelina Armijo (“Armijo”) was arrested after she made several sales of methamphetamine and marijuana to a confidential informant working for the Nevada Division of Investigation. The transactions occurred inside Armijo’s home which was located 175 feet from a public school. Armijo pled guilty to one count of selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced her to a five-year prison term for the sale of a controlled substance, a consecutive five-year prison term under NRS 453.3345 for selling controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school, and a two-year term for possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Armijo contends that NRS 453.3345 violates equal protection principles because the 1,000-foot radius used for sentence enhancement is an arbitrary measurement that is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
[*1304] The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution requires that state laws which provide different treatment to different classes of people have a rational basis to a legitimate governmental interest. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). We have interpreted the standard of the Equal Protection Clause of the Nevada Constitution to be the same as the federal standard and have held that where no suspect classification or fundamental right is involved, the role of this court is to determine whether the classification bears a rational relationship to the legislative purpose sought to be effected. State Farm v. All Electric, Inc., 99 Nev. 222, 660 P.2d 995 (1983).
The children of Nevada are of paramount concern to the State. We hold that the State has a compelling interest in protecting its children from the evils that follow both the use and trafficking of drugs and that the 1,000-foot radius used for sentence enhancement in NRS 453.3345 is rationally related to that end. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction and the five-year sentence enhancement as required under NRS 453.3345.