ABC Sec. Service, Inc. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 14 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 58156,58156,2 |
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 521 |
| Parties | ABC SECURITY SERVICE, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Delbert MILLER, Jr., et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert R. Schwartz, G. Carroll Stribling, Jr., Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard, Stribling & Boedeker, St. Louis, for appellants.
Robert C. McNicholas, City Counselor, John J. Fitzgibbon, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, for respondents.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Appellants are eight corporations engaged in the business of providing watchmen within the City of St. Louis on a contract basis, and one individual who is a licensed watchman. They seek to have § 84.340, RSMo 1974, V.A.M.S. declared unconstitutional and void, and in the alternative to have certain regulations made pursuant to said statute declared void. By reason of the constitutional issue, appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
The case was submitted to the trial court on the pleadings and a stipulation of facts as follows:
'1. Plaintiff Corporations are corporations organized and existing under law and authorized to do business and doing business in the State of Missouri.
'2. Plaintiff Charles L. Hudson is a citizen and resident of the State of Missouri and at all times material herein was a private watchman licensed by defendants as a private watchman in the City of St. Louis.
'3. Plaintiff Corporations are engaged in the business of providing private watchmen on a contract basis to various firms, businesses and organizations in, among other places, in the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
'4. Defendants are individuals and citizens and residents of the State of Missouri, and comprise the duly appointed Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department as provided by Mo.R.S., 1969, 84.020.
'5. Defendants, as the Board of Police Commissioners, are purportedly authorized and empowered to 'regulate and license all private watchmen, private detectives and private policemen serving or acting as such (in the City of St. Louis) . . . pursuant to Mo.R.S., 1969, 84.340.
'6. At all times material herein, defendants pursuant to said power purportedly granted to them by said statute, have exercised and continue to exercise said power to regulate and license watchmen, and in furtherance thereof have from time to time promulgated various rules, regulations and licensing fees with respect to watchmen in the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
'7. Those watchmen whom plaintiff Corporations provide on a contract basis with their clients and plaintiff Charles L. Hudson are purportedly subject to the rules, regulations and licensing fees promulgated by the said Board while serving or acting as private watchmen in the City of St. Louis.
'8. On and before July 17, 1970, said defendants promulgated regulations and rules with respect to the initial licensing of watchmen, providing in Rule 1.003 thereof that 'a processing fee in an amount determined by the Board must accompany the application.'
'9. On and prior to July 17, 1970, said defendants promulgated rules and regulations with respect to license renewals for watchmen, Rule 1.103 thereof providing in part: 'an appropriate renewal fee in an amount determined by the Board shall accompany all applications for renewals.'
'10. On and prior to July 17, 1970, said Board, pursuant to its Rule 1.003 and 1.103, required processing fees for new watchmen's licenses and renewal fees as follows:
Initial license fee .. $10.00
Renewal fee .......... $10.00
Watchman's badge ..... $10.00
'11. At all times material herein, the watchmen furnished by plaintiff Corporations on a contract basis and plaintiff Charles L. Hudson were required by said Board of Police Commissioners to pay to said Board the applicable fees as set out in paragraph 9, above.
'12. On or about July 17, 1970, said Board, by its order, changed the schedule of and requirements for initial licensing fees and renewals to be charged, effective August 1, 1970. A schedule of said new fees is as follows:
Initial processing fee ..... $20.00
Academy training ........... $25.00
Deposit on equipment ....... $15.00
License reinstatement fee .. $15.00
Renewal fee ................ $10.00
Transfer fee ............... $12.00
Replacement fees
badge ...................... $10.00
license .................... $ 7.00
I.D. card .................. $ 1.00
'13. At the instance and request of plaintiff Corporations, defendants agreed to stay the effectiveness of said new licensing fees until September 1, 1970, at which time said fees went into effect.
'14. Plaintiff Charles L. Hudson is a private citizen of the State of Missouri and is not a member of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
'15. Among the rules promulgated by said Board of Police Commissioners is Rule 1.001(f), that an applicant must 'not be a full-time commissioned officer of any law enforcement agency.'
In addition there were five exhibits, the substance of which need not be set forth.
In the trial court, and on this appeal, respondents challenged the standing of the corporate appellants to sue because 'the statute and rules and regulations do not regulate or control corporations but only persons,' and they also challenge the right of the individual to sue on the basis that he cannot voluntarily proceed under a statute and accept the benefits and then challenge its validity. However, the Declaratory Judgment Act specifically authorizes any person whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute to have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the statute, and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. Rule 87.02, V.A.M.R. Proposed changes in the regulations of the Board of Police Commissioners made pursuant to § 84.340, RSMo 1969, adversely affect the individual plaintiff and also the business operations of the corporate plaintiffs. The trial court correctly overruled respondents' challenge to appellants' standing to maintain this action. See Marshall v. Kansas City, 355 S.W.2d 877 (Mo. banc 1962).
Section 84.340 is a part of a comprehensive statutory plan for placing the St. Louis police department under state control. Section 84.020 creates a Board of Police Commissioners, and § 84.010 provides that no ordinance of the city shall conflict or interfere with the powers of the Board. Other sections provide for the appointment of the members of the Board and specify its duties and powers. It is then provided in § 84.340 as follows:
'The police commissioner (admitted to refer to the Board of Police Commissioners) of the said cities shall have the power to regulate and license all private watchmen, private detectives and private policemen, serving or acting as such in said cities, and no person shall act as such private watchman, private detective or private policeman in said cities without first having obtained the written license of the president or acting president of said police commissioners of the said cities, under pain of being guilty of a misdemeanor.'
Appellants contend that 'The attempted unreserved delegation * * * to the Board of Police Commissioners of the power 'to regulate all private watchmen, private detectives and private policemen serving or acting as such' without any restrictions, guidelines or conditions whatsoever amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power itself.'
We have read each case cited by appellants, but we do not consider them to be controlling in view of the factual situation of this case. An ordinance or a statute which vests discretion in administrative officials must, generally stated, include standards for their guidance in order to be constitutional. Behnke v. City of Moberly, 243 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.App.1951); Clay v. City of St. Louis, 495 S.W.2d 672 (Mo.App.1973). However, the tendency is toward greater liberality in permitting grants of discretion, Milgram Food Stores, Inc., v. Ketchum, 384 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1964), and the validity of any grant of discretion will depend largely upon the nature of the activity with respect to which it is exercised. Ex parte Williams, 345 Mo. 1121, 139...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menorah Medical Center v. Health and Educational Facilities Authority
...have been to add unnecessary redundancy. The Act successfully meets the current Missouri test as set forth in ABC Security Service, Inc. v. Miller, 514 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1974). Therein, at 524, we stated that: An ordinance or a statute which vests discretion in administrative officials must, g......
-
State ex rel. Sayad v. Zych
...Spink v. Kemp, 365 Mo. 368, 283 S.W.2d 502 (1955); State ex rel. Priest v. Gunn, 326 S.W.2d 314 (Mo. banc 1959); ABC Security Service, Inc. v. Miller, 514 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.1974). These cases hold that the State has the power to compel municipalities to fund a police force. The general assembl......
-
State ex rel. Wagner v. ST. LOUIS CTY., ETC.
...Priest v. Gunn, 326 S.W.2d 314, 320 (Mo. banc 1959). The discussion of the delegation issue in Menorah and in ABC Security Service, Inc. v. Miller, 514 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. 1974), and in the cases cited therein, makes clear that this Court follows the modern tendency toward greater liberality in......
-
Coop. Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, SC 95401
...three exceptions to the general rule prohibiting the delegation of legislative functions. For instance, in ABC Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 514 S.W.2d 521, 524–25 (Mo. 1974) , this Court stated:The courts recognize three general exceptions to the strict rule which requires the inclusion of s......