City of St. Peters v. Roeder
| Decision Date | 18 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 94379,SC 94379 |
| Citation | 466 S.W.3d 538 |
| Parties | City of St. Peters, Missouri, Appellant, v. Bonnie A. Roeder, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
The city was represented by Victor Scott Williams, Nicholas J. Komoroski and Jared D. Howell of Hazelwood & Weber LLC in St. Charles, (636) 947-4700.
Roeder was represented by W. Bevis Schock, an attorney in St. Louis, (314) 726-2322, and Hugh A. Eastwood, another attorney in St. Louis, (314) 809-2343.
The City of St. Peters appeals the trial court's dismissal of the city's prosecution of Bonnie A. Roeder for violating ordinance 4536 by failing to stop at a red light while that violation was detected by an automated enforcement system. After a jury found Ms. Roeder guilty of violating ordinance 4536, Ms. Roeder filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing (1) ordinance 4536 conflicts with state law by not assessing points against a violator's driving record; (2) the notice of violation does not contain the information required by Rule 37.33(b); and (3) ordinance 4536 is being applied in violation of her right to equal protection. The trial court sustained Ms. Roeder's motion and dismissed the charge against Ms. Roeder.
On appeal, the city asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing the prosecution because ordinance 4536 does not conflict with state law regarding the assessment of points, any such conflict is not a viable defense to the city's prosecution, and any invalid provision can be severed from the rest of the ordinance.1 This Court finds ordinance 4536 conflicts with section 302.302.1,2 which requires the assessment of two points for a moving violation, because the ordinance creates a moving violation and states that no points will be assessed. The portion of ordinance 4536 that conflicts with state law can be severed from the valid portions, but such severance will be given effect prospectively only. Severance and enforcement of the remaining valid portion of ordinance 4536 against Ms. Roeder would violate due process by imposing a direct and negative consequence of her conviction when the ordinance affirmatively informed Ms. Roeder that a violation of the ordinance would not result in points. Accordingly, this Court affirms the trial court's judgment dismissing the charge for violating ordinance 4536.
The city enacted ordinance 4536, codified in St. Peters City Code section 335.095, to authorize the installation and use of an automated red light enforcement system. Ordinance 4536 further creates an offense that occurs when a “person fails to comply with the City Traffic Code and the violation is detected through the automated red light enforcement system.” As relevant to this case, the city's traffic code states, “The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device.” St. Peters Code section 315.030.
The automated red light enforcement system consists of cameras and vehicle sensors capable of producing images recording a motor vehicle running a red light. The system produces images of an offending vehicle, the vehicle's license plate, the vehicle's operator, and the traffic control signal. These images are reviewed by an officer of the St. Peters police department. If it is determined that a violation occurred, “the officer may use any lawful means to identify the vehicle's owner.” A summons will then be served on the vehicle's owner within 60 days of the violation. The ordinance classifies a violation as an infraction punishable by a fine no greater than $200 and states that “[i]n no case shall points be assessed against any person ... for a conviction of a violation of the City Traffic Code detected through the automated red light enforcement system.” Id.
On June 15, 2012, the city issued a notice of violation and summons to Bonnie Roeder. The notice was titled “City of St. Peters, MO Red Light Photo Enforcement Program” and stated that a vehicle registered to Ms. Roeder was in violation of ordinance 4536.3 Specifically, it stated that a red light camera enforcement system captured her vehicle running a red light. The instructions attached to the notice provided Ms. Roeder three options: (1) pay a $110 fine; (2) submit an “Affidavit of Non–Responsibility” showing either that Ms. Roeder sold the vehicle prior to the violation date or that the vehicle or license plates were stolen at the time of the violation; or (3) appear in court on July 31, 2012, to have the matter reviewed by a municipal judge. The notice stated that the failure to either pay the fine on or before July 31, 2012, or appear in court on that date may result in a warrant being issued for Ms. Roeder's arrest. The notice also stated that no points would be assessed to Ms. Roeder's driving record.
Ms. Roeder failed to complete any of the three options, and the matter was set for a municipal division hearing in September 2012. Ms. Roeder failed to appear, and the city charged her with an additional violation of failure to appear. By Ms. Roeder's request, the municipal division then certified the case for a jury trial in the circuit court of St. Charles County. Prior to trial, Ms. Roeder filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the notice of violation violated her due process rights by not providing statements showing probable cause to believe Ms. Roeder was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation, ordinance 4536 violated her due process rights by creating a rebuttable presumption that the owner of the motor vehicle was the operator, and ordinance 4536 conflicted with state law by not assessing points. She also asserted an “affirmative defense” of unlawful rulemaking, alleging the city and Missouri department of revenue “engaged in unlawful rulemaking by using Missouri Charge Code Manual No Points Charge for Red Light Cameras” because that charge code was created informally. The trial court overruled Ms. Roeder's motion to dismiss.
The jury trial occurred on September 5, 2013. During trial, the city presented four still photographs showing: (1) Ms. Roeder's motor vehicle traveling toward an intersection but not yet to the stop line; (2) Ms. Roeder's motor vehicle beyond the stop line and in the intersection after the traffic light turned red; (3) the front window of Ms. Roeder's motor vehicle through which Ms. Roeder's face can be seen; and (4) the rear of Ms. Roeder's motor vehicle, including the license plate. The city also played video of the motor vehicle driving through the intersection after the light had turned red.4 At the close of the evidence, the trial court acquitted Ms. Roeder of the failure to appear charge, and the jury found Ms. Roeder guilty of violating ordinance 4536 and assessed a $110 fine.
Following the court of appeal's ruling in Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. 2013), declaring a similar ordinance void, Ms. Roeder filed a renewed motion for acquittal. In her motion, Ms. Roeder asserted three arguments: (1) ordinance 4536 conflicts with state law in that it does not assess points against a violator's driving record; (2) the notice of violation does not contain the information required by Rule 37.33(b); and (3) ordinance 4536 is being applied in violation of her right to equal protection because operators of motor vehicles that they personally own are prosecuted when operators of motor vehicles owned by a trust, corporation, or company are not prosecuted.
The trial court treated the motion as a renewal of Ms. Roeder's motion to dismiss and relied on Unverferth, 419 S.W.3d 76, to find that the city's ordinance conflicted with state law by not assessing points against a violator's driving record. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the charge for violating ordinance 4536.
The city appeals. After an opinion by the court of appeals, the case was transferred to this Court. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.
This Court will affirm a trial court's dismissal if the motion to dismiss can be sustained on any ground alleged in the motion. Foster v. State, 352 S.W.3d 357, 359 (Mo. banc 2011). Interpretation of municipal ordinances and determination of whether they conflict with state law are questions of law and reviewed de novo . State ex rel. Sunshine Enters. of Missouri, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of St. Ann, 64 S.W.3d 310, 312–14 (Mo. banc 2002). The rules governing interpretation of a statute are employed when interpreting an ordinance. State ex rel. Teefey v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, 24 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Mo. banc 2000). Accordingly, the Court will ascertain the intent of the municipality, give effect to that intent, if possible, and consider the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id.
In her original and renewed motions to dismiss, Ms. Roeder claimed ordinance 4536 is void because it conflicts with state law by not assessing points against a violator's driving record. The trial court agreed, finding that a violation of ordinance 4536 is a “moving violation” and, therefore, that the ordinance conflicts with section 302.302.1(1), which provides that points must be assessed for “any moving violation” of a municipal ordinance.
On appeal, the city asserts the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Ms. Roeder for violating ordinance 4536 because the ordinance does not conflict with state law. The city argues that section 302.302 permits the director of revenue to classify certain offenses as non-point offenses and that the director has exercised this discretion in designating red light camera violations as non-point offenses. The city further maintains that the ordinance complies with state law because, under its authority pursuant to sections 43.505 and 43.512, RSMo 2000, the department of public safety published the Missouri charge code manual with a charge code for a red light camera violation that does not assess...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langford v. City of St. Louis
...it determines that the municipality would not have enacted the ordinance without the invalid portion." C ity of St. Peters v. Roeder, 466 S.W.3d 538, 547 & n.8 (Mo. 2015) (en banc) (applying statutory severability provision, § 1.140, Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000), to unconstitutional municipal ordi......
-
City of Aurora v. Spectra Commc'ns Grp., LLC
...service ... in the City." The interpretation of a municipal ordinance is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo. City of St. Peters v. Roeder , 466 S.W.3d 538, 543 (Mo. banc 2015). This Court employs the rules governing statutory interpretation when interpreting an ordinance. Tupper v. Ci......
-
Fernandez v. St. Louis Cnty.
...the invalid provisions. Phelps-Roper v. Koster , 713 F.3d 942, 953 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting § 1.140 RSMo ); see also City of St. Peters v. Roeder , 466 S.W.3d 538, 547 (Mo. banc 2015).Section 804.165 is severable. Earlier versions of Chapter 804 did not include this section. See St. Louis C......
-
Tupper v. City of St. Louis
...adjudicating claims that an ordinance conflicts with state law to declaratory judgment actions, which is not the case. See City of St. Petersv. Roeder, 466 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. banc 2015); State ex rel. Sunshine Enterprises of Missouri, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of St. Ann, 64 S.W.3d 310......