Frederick v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 09 January 2002 |
Citation | 38 P.3d 288,178 Or. App. 571 |
Parties | Timothy J. FREDERICK, Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Philip A. Lewis argued the cause, for appellant. On the briefs were Heather Van Meter and Ater Wynne LLP, Portland.
Harry Auerbach, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief, for respondent.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER and SCHUMAN, Judges.
Petitioner appeals a judgment affirming a City of Portland (city) administrative order excluding him from the city's "drug-free zones" for a one-year period. We conclude that, because the one-year period had expired by the time of the trial court's decision, the case was moot. We therefore remand with instructions to vacate the judgment.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. The Portland City Code (PCC) designates certain areas as "drug-free zones." PCC 14.100.010. If a person is convicted of certain drug-related offenses committed within a drug-free zone, he or she is subject to an administrative order excluding him or her from the zones for a period of one year from the date of conviction. PCC 14.100.030.
On February 25, 1998, petitioner was arrested within a drug-free zone and charged with, among other things, attempted possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. He pleaded guilty to the charge. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 18 months. Meanwhile, on July 13, 1998, the city served petitioner with a notice of exclusion, ordering him not to enter any of the designated drug-free zones for a period of one year.
Petitioner appealed the notice of exclusion, challenging its constitutionality. Pursuant to local ordinance, PCC 14.100.060(A)(6), the appeal did not stay the effect of the notice. The hearing officer upheld the validity of the notice.
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of review of the hearing officer's decision. In the meantime, the one-year notice of exclusion expired, and petitioner successfully completed probation. On July 17, 2000, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the city, upholding the validity of the notice.
Petitioner appeals, reasserting his various constitutional challenges to the validity of the notice of exclusion. The city contends that the matter has become moot, indeed, that it was moot at the time the trial court issued the judgment. Petitioner contends that, even if the matter is moot, it is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and, as such, is subject to judicial review. In the alternative, he argues that, even if not subject to that exception to the mootness doctrine, it is subject to another, namely, the "important public welfare" exception of Perry v. Oregon Liquor Commission, 180 Or. 495, 498-99, 177 P.2d 406 (1947).
We begin with the question whether the matter is moot. A case is moot when a judgment of the court will not have "some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy." Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402, 405, 848 P.2d 1194 (1993). In this case, petitioner challenges the lawfulness of an order of exclusion that no longer applies to him. He has identified no practical effect that a judgment can have on his rights, and we are aware of none. It is therefore moot. See, e.g., Smith v. Lampert, 174 Or.App. 581, 582, 25 P.3d 984 (2001) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blechschmidt v. Shatzer
...to those regulations in the future." Barcik, 321 Or. at 192, 895 P.2d 765 (emphasis in original). 4. In Frederick v. City of Portland, 178 Or.App. 571, 574, 38 P.3d 288 (2002), we similarly concluded that the petitioner's challenge to his DFZ exclusion was moot, because the exclusion had ex......
- Stocker v. Keith
-
Rest-Haven Memorial Park v. City of Eugene
...there exists an exception to that rule for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, cf., Frederick v. City of Portland, 178 Or.App. 571, 574, 38 P.3d 288 (2002) (Oregon courts do not recognize such an exception); but see Harris v. Keisling, 173 Or.App. 163, 167, 20 P.3d 864,......
-
Yancy v. Shatzer
...court rendered its judgment and, therefore, vacate the judgment on remand with instructions to dismiss. See Frederick v. City of Portland, 178 Or.App. 571, 38 P.3d 288 (2002). The underlying exclusion order was issued on June 9, 2000, and, by its terms, expired 30 days later. Petitioner did......