City of Commerce City v. State

• Citation: 40 P.3d 1273
• Decision Date: 11 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01SC281.,01SC281.
• Parties: The CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; Timothy J. Gagen, as City Manager of the City of Commerce City; The City of Westminster, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; William M. Christopher, as City Manager of the City of Westminster; The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; John F. Fischbach, as City Manager of the City of Fort Collins; The City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation, Petitioners v. STATE of Colorado, a state of the United States of America; and Bill Owens, as Governor of the State of Colorado, Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

40 P.3d 1273

The CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; Timothy J. Gagen, as City Manager of the City of Commerce City; The City of Westminster, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; William M. Christopher, as City Manager of the City of Westminster; The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation; John F. Fischbach, as City Manager of the City of Fort Collins; The City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation, Petitioners v. STATE of Colorado, a state of the United States of America; and Bill Owens, as Governor of the State of Colorado, Respondents.

No. 01SC281.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

February 11, 2002.

Gehler & Merrigan, Thomas E. Merrigan, Commerce City, Colorado, Attorney for Petitioner City of Commerce City, Colorado.

Stephen J. Roy, City Attorney, Fort Collins, Colorado, Attorney for City of Fort Collins.

Martin R. McCullough, City Attorney, Jeffrey H. Cahn, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, Westminster, Municipal Court, Westminster, Colorado, Attorneys for City of Westminster.

Patricia K. Kelley, City Attorney, Lori R. Miskel, City Attorney Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for City of Colorado Springs.

John R. Duval, City Attorney, Loveland, Colorado, Special Counsel for Petitioners.

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Robert H. Dodd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Respondents.

Geoffrey T. Wilson, Denver, Colorado, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League.

Walter W. Fricke, Boulder, Colorado, Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Boulder. Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The question raised in this appeal is whether certain provisions of section 42-4-110.5, 11 C.R.S. (2001) and section 42-3-112(14), 11 C.R.S. (2001) regulating the manner in which cities use automated vehicle identification systems (AVIS) to enforce traffic laws unconstitutionally infringe on home-rule cities' powers under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.¹

Because we conclude that the regulation of automated vehicle identification systems to enforce traffic laws is a matter of mixed local and state concern, we hold that the challenged provisions of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14) are not superseded by the Petitioner-cities' local ordinances or charters. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and uphold the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this case, the cities of Commerce City, Westminster, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs (Cities), each home-rule municipalities under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14) regulating the use of automated vehicle identification systems, popularly known as photo radar and photo red light, in Colorado.²

The Cities argue that certain provisions of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14) unconstitutionally infringe on their home-rule powers because Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution unambiguously reserves to the Cities the power to enforce local traffic ordinances and operate municipal courts. The Cities do not argue that all of the restrictions placed on home-rule cities by the state legislation violate their home-rule powers, rather they challenge the following: (1) the ninety day service provision for traffic violations detected by AVIS³; (2) the requirement that an entity using AVIS post a sign in a conspicuous place before each area in which AVIS are used notifying the public of their use⁴; (3) the provision that an entity using AVIS mail warnings to first-time violators who have been identified by automated systems if the drivers were detected speeding at a rate less than ten miles over a reasonable speed limit⁵; (4) the provision establishing a forty-dollar maximum fine for speeding violations detected by AVIS⁶; (5) the provision establishing an eighty-dollar maximum fine for AVIS-detected speeding violations in school zones⁷; (6) the provision establishing a seventy-five dollar maximum penalty for red light violations detected by AVIS⁸; (7) the provision limiting the method by which an entity using automated systems may contract with AVIS vendors and manufacturers for the use or acquisition of AVIS equipment⁹; and (8) the prohibition against access to state records — which are needed to determine the identity and address of the registered owner of a motor vehicle involved in a violation detected by an automated system — unless the entity requesting the access complies with section 42-4-110.5.¹⁰

In 1996 and 1997, both prior to and after the passage of Senate Bill 97-36,¹¹ Commerce City, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs adopted ordinances authorizing the use of AVIS within their city limits.¹² Westminster, which had begun initial contractual negotiations with an AVIS provider, opted not to finalize its contract because of the uncertainty as to whether the state statute would apply to it as a home-rule city. Only Fort Collins and Commerce City actually implemented AVIS.

Prior to the General Assembly's regulation of AVIS, little uniformity existed in the way Commerce City and Fort Collins implemented their respective systems. For example, while Fort Collins generally notified drivers of the city's use of AVIS by placing appropriate signs at its city entrances, it did not post notification signs at AVIS locations themselves. Commerce City, on the other hand, posted signs about 200 feet before the AVIS units. Moreover, while Fort Collins stationed an officer with the automated-system unit during use, Commerce City did not do so. In fact, in Commerce City, the AVIS vendor, a private corporation, positioned the unit at the field location, and a police officer would only occasionally check to assure it was in the correct location. In addition, while Fort Collins used automated systems on state highways within its city limits about 20% of the time, it primarily used them on local streets. Commerce City, however, used AVIS exclusively on state highways within its borders, and never on its local streets. Moreover, in Commerce City, approximately 90% of AVIS citations were issued to non-residents while in Fort Collins about 43% of AVIS citations were issued to non-residents.

Furthermore, Fort Collins and Commerce City paid their AVIS vendors based on a percentage of the fine collected and neither city's law enforcement agency directly issued AVIS citations. Rather, a private, out-of-state corporation decided whether to issue a citation based on considerations such as the clarity of the driver's photograph, whether the gender of the driver in the photograph matched the registered owner of the vehicle, and whether the license number could be clearly read. After making a decision, the corporation itself, rather than the police, directly issued the automated-system citations. In addition, the AVIS vendor did not initially include a copy of the photograph with the summons that was mailed to the vehicle's registered owner; rather the AVIS vendor mailed photographs to the municipal courts to be held there. Thus, drivers ticketed by automated systems were required to go to the municipal court to view a photograph to determine whether the picture accurately identified the driver charged.

In 1997 and 1999, in response to concern about the use of AVIS within Colorado and with the belief that "the use of automated vehicle identification systems ... is a matter of statewide concern" which calls for "uniform state standards," § 42-4-110.5(1), the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 97-36 and House Bill 99-1364, which were codified at section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14). These statutes established uniform regulations for the use of AVIS in Colorado.

Thereafter, the Cities filed a complaint in district court challenging the constitutionality of the state legislation, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Cities argued that certain subsections of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-4-112(14) impermissibly infringe on their home-rule powers under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution.¹³ Specifically, the Cities argued that the enforcement of traffic laws regulating speeding and red lights is strictly a matter of local interest. Thus, since the state statutes conflict with the Cities' municipal ordinances regulating AVIS, the state legislation is superseded by the local charters and ordinances pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, which grants municipalities home-rule powers.

The State argued that the use of AVIS in Colorado is a matter of statewide concern (or at least a matter of mixed state and local interest), and therefore the state legislation regulating these enforcement technologies supersedes conflicting local ordinances.

The trial court held that the use of "photo radar" is one of mixed statewide and local interest. The trial court, noting that there is no "`litmus-like indicator for resolving whether a matter is of local, statewide or mixed concern,'" (R. at v. III, p. 582) (quoting Nat'l Adver. Co. v. Dep't of Highways, 751 P.2d 632, 635 (Colo.1988)), applied the four factors we set out in Voss v. Lundvall Bros., Inc., 830 P.2d 1061, 1067 (Colo.1992) to determine whether the statutes at issue in this case violated the Cities' home-rule powers. First, the court concluded that-consistent with the General Assembly's declaration that the regulation of AVIS implicates the state interest in uniformity-the Cities' varied implementation of AVIS confused drivers and highlighted the state interest in "protecting the rights of Colorado drivers by establishing some basic uniformity in the manner that photo radar systems are operated." (R. at v. III, p. 584.) Second, the court noted the extraterritorial impact on state citizens. Third, ...