City of Moline Acres v. Brennan

• Decision Date: 18 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. SC 94085,SC 94085
• Citation: 470 S.W.3d 367
• Parties: City of Moline Acres, Appellant, v. Charles W. Brennan, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

470 S.W.3d 367

City of Moline Acres, Appellant

v.Charles W. Brennan, Respondent.

No. SC 94085

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc .

Opinion issued August 18, 2015

Rehearing Denied October 27, 2015

The city was represented by Carl J. Lumley, Kenneth J. Heinz and Edward J. Sluys of Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O'Keefe PC in Clayton, (314) 725-8788.

Brennan was represented by Hugh A. Eastwood, an attorney in St. Louis, (314) 809-2343, and W. Bevis Schock, also an attorney in St. Louis, (314) 726-2322.

Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court: the Missouri Municipal League was represented by Bernard A. Garner, an attorney in Independence, (816) 478-3848; and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation was represented by Anthony E. Rothert, an attorney with the foundation in St. Louis, (314) 652-3114, and Gillian R. Wilcox, an attorney with the foundation in Kansas City, (816) 470-9938.

Opinion

Paul C. Wilson, Judge

The City of Moline Acres (“City”) appeals from the dismissal of the City's charge against Charles Brennan (“Brennan”) for violating City code section 395.010 (the “Ordinance”). Brennan pleaded not guilty, and the matter was certified for jury trial to the St. Louis County Circuit Court. There, Brennan filed a motion to dismiss the charge, claiming that the Ordinance and the City's notice of violation (“Notice”) contradict state law and/or violate due process. The circuit court sustained Brennan's motion and dismissed the charge with prejudice. That judgment is affirmed.

Background

In 2012, the City adopted the Ordinance as part of the City's traffic code. It states, in pertinent part:

Every motor vehicle owner has a duty to ensure that their motor vehicle at all times complies with the prescribed speed limits. It shall be deemed a violation of Public Safety on Roadways for the Owner to permit their motor vehicle to be operated at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit where the violation is captured by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System....

City Code § 395.010.

On July 31, 2012, the City's automated Traffic Enforcement System's camera photographed a vehicle owned by Brennan travelling at 56 miles per hour where the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour. The City sent Brennan a document dated August 10, 2012, titled “Notice of Violation,” which contains several provisions relevant to this appeal.

First, the Notice advised Brennan that “[i]t has been determined that your vehicle was operated in a manner that violated public safety by exceeding the speed limit” and that “as the registered owner(s) or lessee you are liable for the violation of Traffic Safety on Roadways.” Second, the Notice states that Brennan owed a “penalty” in the amount of $124¹ for committing this violation and that this payment was “due” before September 1, 2012.² Third, the Notice states:

Full payment before the due date of this Notice will prevent this matter from being referred to the prosecutor for filing of an information in the Moline Acres Municipal Court. Upon filing of an information, a summons for you to appear in the Moline Acres Municipal Court will be issued and court costs will be assessed and become payable in addition to the amount of this fine.

Fourth, the Notice advised Brennan that he could pay his “penalty” by mailing a check “payable to the City of Moline Acres” to the address for the “City of Moline Acres—Automated Traffic Enforcement Division,” by paying with a credit card by calling a toll free number, or by accessing a website dedicated to the City's automated traffic enforcement scheme. Fifth, the Notice states: “If you do not wish to resolve this matter outside of the municipal court system, and you do not remit payment as herein requested, a summons will be issued for you to appear in Municipal Court.” Finally, the Notice states that Brennan's violation is a “non-moving violation” and, therefore, “[n]o points will be assessed against your driver's license.”

Brennan retained counsel, pleaded not guilty, and demanded a jury trial. His case was certified to the circuit court. On December 6, Brennan filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the ground that the Ordinance and Notice are invalid and unenforceable. He argued that the Ordinance and Notice: (1) contradict state law, which makes the driver (and only the driver) liable for moving violations such as speeding; (2) contradict state law because they do not require points to be assessed even though violations of the Ordinance are “moving violations” for purposes of section 302.302.1;³ (3) violate due process because they shift the burden of proof to the defendant on an essential element of the offense; (4) violate due process because the Notice did not comply with Rule 37.33(a) in that it did not tell Brennan the date and time of his initial court appearance and did not set forth facts showing probable to cause to believe Brennan violated the Ordinance.

After a hearing, the trial court sustained Mr. Brennan's motion and entered judgment dismissing the City's information on the ground that the Ordinance and Notice contradict state speeding statutes (i.e., sections 304.009, RSMo 2000, and 304.010). The City appealed and, following an opinion by the court of appeals, the appeal was transferred to this Court. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.

Standard of Review

The dismissal of an information charging an ordinance violation is reviewed de novo where the dismissal is based solely on questions of law. Cf. State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410, 413–14 (Mo. banc 2013) (dismissal of felony count reviewed de novo); State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304, 313 (Mo. banc 2015) (ruling on motion to dismiss based on constitutional right to speedy trial reviewed de novo, though deference is given to related factual findings).

Conflict with State Law

In its first point, the City asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing the information against Brennan based on a conflict between the Ordinance and sections 304.009 and 304.010. The Court agrees. Because no such conflict exists, the information should not have been dismissed on that basis.

Section 546.902, which applies to cities in St. Louis County (including Moline Acres), authorizes these cities to “enact and make all such ordinances and rules, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, as may be expedient for maintaining the peace and good government and welfare of the city....” Similarly, section 79.110 authorizes fourth-class cities (including Moline Acres) to “enact and ordain any and all ordinances not repugnant to the constitution and laws of this state and such as they shall deem expedient for the good government of the city....” A conflict of the sort that will invalidate a local ordinance exists only if “the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or prohibits what the statute permits.” Page W., Inc. v. Community Fire Prot. Dist. of St. Louis County, 636 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo. banc 1982) (quotations marks omitted). This Court will adopt any reasonable construction necessary to avoid such a conflict “unless the ordinance is expressly inconsistent or in irreconcilable conflict with the general law of the state.” McCollum v. Dir. of Revenue, 906 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Mo. banc 1995).

Section 304.010 provides uniform speed limits for roads and highways, subject to alteration by local governments under certain circumstances. Under section 304.010.11, exceeding any of these limits by more than five miles per hour is a class C misdemeanor. Section 304.120.1 permits cities to establish “reasonable speed regulations for motor vehicles within the limits of such municipalities,” but such ordinances may not be “contrary to or in conflict with this chapter, except as herein provided.” § 304.120.3.

In his motion to dismiss, Brennan argued that the Ordinance contradicts section 304.010 because it purports to make vehicle owners—not drivers—liable for the act of speeding and because it reduces speeding to an infraction rather than the misdemeanor required by state law. The City contends that this argument must fail because it is based on the erroneous premise that the Ordinance prohibits speeding. To the contrary, the City maintains that the purpose of the Ordinance is not to punish speeding, but to punish the very different act of an owner giving someone else⁴ permission to use the owner's vehicle to exceed the speed limit.

The Court is bound to acknowledge that the City is correct. The Court is limited to construing the language of the Ordinance, and this language does not purport to regulate speeding.⁵ Instead, the Ordinance is carefully drafted to regulate only the conduct of vehicle owners, not drivers, and it prohibits such owners from giving permission for “their motor vehicle to be operated at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit.” Accordingly, the Ordinance does not permit what section 304.010 prohibits, and the Ordinance does not prohibit what section 304.010 permits.⁶ Page W ., 636 S.W.2d at 67. Without such a conflict, the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Brennan on this ground.

Even though the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Brennan for the reason it did, an “appellate court is ‘primarily concerned with the correctness of the trial court's result, not the route taken by the trial court to reach that result.’ ” American Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis County, 379 S.W.3d 813, 829 (Mo. banc 2012). For that reason, when reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss, the “judgment will be affirmed if cognizable under any theory, regardless of whether the reasons advanced by the trial court are wrong or not sufficient.” Id. Here, Brennan also argued in the trial court that the Ordinance contradicted sections 302.302 and 302.225. He claimed that, because section 302.302.1(2) requires that at least two points must be assessed for the violation of any speeding law or ordinance, the Ordinance contradicts this statute because it does not require the...