City of Baxter Springs v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 09 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 50747,50747
• Citation: 598 P.2d 1051,226 Kan. 383
• Parties: The CITY OF BAXTER SPRINGS, Kansas, Appellant, v. Harry L. BRYANT, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1051

598 P.2d 1051

226 Kan. 383

The CITY OF BAXTER SPRINGS, Kansas, Appellant, v. Harry L. BRYANT, Appellee.

No. 50747.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Aug. 9, 1979.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution.

2. In determining constitutionality, it is the court's duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done.

3. Statutes are not stricken down unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond substantial doubt.

4. The propriety, wisdom, necessity and expedience of legislation are exclusively matters for legislative determination and courts will not invalidate laws, otherwise constitutional, because the members of the court do not consider the statute in the public interest of the state, since, necessarily, what the views of members of the court may be upon the subject is wholly immaterial and it is not the province nor the right of courts to determine the wisdom of legislation touching the public interest as that is a legislative function with which courts cannot interfere.

5. Once a subject is found to be within the scope of the state's police power, the only limitations upon the exercise of such power are that the regulations must have reference in fact to the welfare of society and must be fairly designed to protect the public against the evils which might otherwise occur. Within these limits the legislature is the sole judge of the nature and extent of the measures necessary to accomplish its purpose.

6. Though the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution leaves regulation to the states, state or local regulation in the field of alcoholic beverages must not be discriminatory and must not conflict with other provisions of the Constitution.

7. The regulation of an occupation, trade or business is widely held to be a legitimate exercise of the police power, where the unrestricted pursuit of the same might adversely affect the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. This principle presupposes that the regulation is reasonable, is not arbitrary, and that it bears a logical connection with the objectives to be accomplished.

8. Upon an appeal by the City of Baxter Springs from a judgment holding two sections of that city's beer ordinance invalid, it is Held that the challenged sections, banning dancing on licensed premises, and prohibiting window screens, curtains or shades, are not reasonably calculated to promote the public health, sanitation, morals, or general welfare, are discriminatory, and are unconstitutional.

Mark L. Bennett, Jr., Topeka, argued the cause, and Merle Duncan, Jr., Baxter Springs, was with him on the brief for appellant.

David F. Brewster, Baxter Springs, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

MILLER, Justice:

The City of Baxter Springs appeals from an order of the Cherokee District Court declaring two sections of a Baxter Springs ordinance unconstitutional, and dismissing six complaints charging the defendant, Harry L. Bryant, with violations of that ordinance. We are asked to review the trial court's ruling.

Bryant is the proprietor of an establishment known as the Sugar Bear Disco, which he has operated within the corporate limits of Baxter Springs since 1975. A "disco," or more properly a discotheque, is, we are informed, a commercial enterprise where people gather to listen and dance to recorded music (formerly recorded on records or "discs" but now frequently recorded on tapes) and to partake of food and other refreshment. During his ownership and operation of the Sugar Bear Disco, Bryant was the holder of a cereal malt beverage license issued by the City, and he sold beer having an alcohol content of not more than 3.2 per cent to his patrons. So far as we are informed, the first few years passed without incident.

Then in September of 1978, Bryant was charged in separate complaints filed in the municipal court of Baxter Springs with four separate violations of § 8(d) and two separate violations of § 8(c) of Ordinance No. 140. Upon trial in municipal court, he was convicted of "dispensing beer and allowing dancing and not having an unobstructed view of his premises from the street." He was fined $50 on each of the six charges.

Bryant appealed to the district court; there he filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the ordinance denies defendant equal protection of the law, is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, is overbroad in its language, and for those reasons is unconstitutional.

The ordinance, entitled BEER ORDINANCE NO. 140, was adopted by the governing body of Baxter Springs on April 27, 1937. The sections in issue read as follows:

"(c) It shall be unlawful for any licensee to sell, dispense or deliver malt beverages under said license in any room or rooms having curtains, screens or other obstructions over or across the windows of said rooms or in said rooms which shall prevent an unobstructed view from the street of the interior of the premises covered by such license.

"(d) It shall be unlawful for any licensee to suffer, permit or allow any dancing upon the premises covered by said permit or in the rooms or premises adjacent thereto, where malt beverages are sold under said license if said rooms or premises adjacent thereto are owned or under control of said licensee."

The motion to dismiss was argued and briefs were submitted by counsel. The district court, on October 31, 1978, sustained the motion, held both sections of the ordinance unconstitutional, and dismissed the complaints. The court said:

"(9) That Sections 8(c) and 8(d) of Ordinance No. 140 of the City of Baxter Springs, Kansas, are unconstitutional in that said ordinance sets forth an unreasonable, arbitrary classification of persons, specifically in that said ordinance prohibits conduct in and sets forth requirements applying to places with licenses for businesses selling cereal malt beverages, but does not prohibit such conduct or set such requirements in such clubs as may be licensed under the Kansas Intoxicating Liquor Law as set forth in K.S.A. 41-2601 through K.S.A. 41-2635.

"(10) That the prohibitions and requirements set forth in said Sections 8(c) and 8(d) are not reasonable and are not a proper exercise of the police power of municipalities, in that said Sections 8(c) and 8(d) do not bear a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, and that they are unreasonable and arbitrary in that the plaintiff City can give no basis or relationship to the protection of the general welfare of the public.

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the motion to dismiss filed herein by the defendant is sustained, and that the convictions of the defendant in the Municipal Court of Baxter Springs, Kansas, are hereby set aside and held for naught, and that the charges filed against the defendant herein are hereby set aside and dismissed."

The City appeals, contending that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss and in holding the two sections of the ordinance unconstitutional.

Before we consider the specific challenges to the ordinance before us, we should review some of the guidelines which come into play when a court is called upon to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.

"The constitutionality of a statute is presumed, all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the statute may be stricken down, it must clearly appear the statute violates the constitution. (Citations omitted.)

"In determining constitutionality, it is the court's duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it and if there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done. (Citations omitted.)

"Statutes are not stricken down unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond substantial doubt. (Citations omitted.)

"The propriety, wisdom, necessity and expedience of legislation are exclusively matters for legislative determination and courts will not invalidate laws, otherwise constitutional, because the members of the court do not consider the statute in the public interest of the state, since, necessarily, what the views of members of the court may be upon the subject is wholly immaterial and it is not the province nor the right of courts to determine the wisdom of legislation touching the public interest as that is a legislative function with which courts cannot interfere. (Citations omitted.)" State ex rel. Schneider v. Kennedy, 225 Kan. 13, 20-21, 587 P.2d 844, 850-851 (1978)

The general rule for reviewing statutes or ordinances enacted pursuant to the police power is stated in City of Wichita v. White, 205 Kan. 408, 469 P.2d 287 (1970), as follows:

"In reviewing statutes such as these, the court begins with the proposition that all presumptions are in favor of their validity. (State ex rel. v. Fairmont Foods Co., 196 Kan. 73, 77, 410 P.2d 308; and Tilley v. Keller Truck & Implement Corp., 200 Kan. 641, 438 P.2d 128.) The court does not sit in judgment on the merits of such legislation. If the statute here challenged does not contravene significant constitutional or inherent rights of individuals, if the classification on which it is based is reasonable, if it is within the scope of the police powers of the state, if it is appropriately related to a proper purpose of such police power, the statute is not to be invalidated by the judicial arm of government." (p. 409, 469 P.2d p. 289.)

In State ex rel. v. Fairmont Foods Co., 196 Kan. 73, 76-77, 410 P.2d 308, 312 (1966), we said:

"Once a subject is found to be within the scope of the state's police power, the only...