Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, Baltimore City Police Dept.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 44,44
• Citation: 236 Md. 476,204 A.2d 521
• Parties: A. Robert KAUFMAN v. TAXICAB BUREAU, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 476

236 Md. 476

204 A.2d 521

A. Robert KAUFMAN v. TAXICAB BUREAU, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 44.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 11, 1964.

Leonard J. Kerpelman, Baltimore, for appellant.

Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, C. J., and PRESCOTT, MARBURY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment against the appellant for costs after the Baltimore City Court affirmed the action of the Taxicab Bureau of the Police Department of Baltimore City (Bureau), which refused to issue a taxicab operator's license to the appellant.

The issues involved are not so clearly defined and set forth in the briefs as might be desired: in fact, we find it difficult, on the record presented to us, to state them with clarity and precision. Judge Joseph Carter noted in his opinion dismissing, as premature, an attempted earlier appeal by the same appellant from a refusal to grant him a license that 'the status of the record in this case is somewhat confusing.' The State, in its brief in this appeal, adds: 'Unfortunately, the argumentative 'statement of facts' * * * [in] the appellant's brief does little to clarify this confusion.' After a careful reading and rereading of the record extract and briefs, we are constrained to agree.

The present appeal represents the fifth attempt by the appellant to have the Bureau issue a license to him; all of which were denied. At least two of the previous denials were appealed to the Baltimore City courts; one of the appeals was dismissed; the other affirmed the Bureau's action. No previous appeal was taken from the rulings of the Baltimore City courts to this Court.

The heart of appellant's contentions is that he has been refused a license because he believes in Socialism; therefore he was denied rights guaranteed to him under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The record completely fails to sustain this contention. Nowhere in either the lower court's opinion or that of the Bureau is there any mention of appellant's being a Socialist and it is not assigned as a reason for denying the license. (On the contrary, the Supervisor of the Bureau explicitly stated that petitioner's beliefs, or his distribution of literature, had nothing to do with the refusal to grant a license.) The only reference to that fact in the record (other than in a written statement made by appellant's counsel) is contained in a report from a police captain to the Chief Inspector back in 1959 concerning appellant's arrest for, and conviction of, disorderly conduct at that time. The report states that certain police officers, when approaching the main entrance to the campus of City College, saw some 300 to 400 students there gathered. The crowd extended into the street and completely blocked traffic. The 'youths' were screaming and threatening bodily harm to the appellant, who was in the center of the crowd. The police asked, 'What is all this trouble about?' The appellant replied that he was giving out 'socialist material and selling our socialist paper.' The report states that appellant was not arrested for distributing the literature but 'for acting disorderly by cursing and using loud and abusive language,' and this was the offense of which he was convicted. We shall not pursue this contention further, but proceed to consider whether the trial court erred in any other manner in sustaining the refusal to grant the license.

The parties are in dispute as to the law governing this appeal. Section 216 of the Charter & P.L.L. of Baltimore City (1949) provides that appeals from the action of the Bureau are to be made in the same manner as appeals from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (see Code [1957], Article 66 1/2, § 109). However, this Court held in Green v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 181 Md. 372, 30 A.2d 261, that the Police Department of Baltimore City is a State agency. Code (1957), Article 41, § 244, states that the Administrative Procedure Act (section 244 et seq.) shall apply to all State agencies except those expressly excluded therefrom and Section 3 of Ch. 94 of the Acts of 1957, which enacted the Administrative Procedure Act, provides that '* * * all Acts or parts of Acts which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency * * *.' Consequently, we hold that Code (1957), Article 41, § 256 is the law governing this appeal. In Bernstein v. Real Estate Comm. of Md., 221 Md. 221, 156 A.2d 657, we noted that the Administrative Procedure Act may have broadened to some extent the scope of judicial review of the findings, inferences, conclusions and decisions of administrative agencies, but it has not altered the basic concept that a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the expertise of the persons who constitute the agency from which the appeal is taken. Compare State Bd. of Reg. for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Ruth, 223 Md. 428, 165 A.2d 145 and Duncan v. McNitt Coal Co., 212 Md. 386, 129 A.2d 523.

We, again, comment on the record extract presented to us. The opinions of the trial judges in the two previous appeals to the Baltimore City courts are contained therein, as well as the trial court's opinion in the present appeal. Appellant, in his brief, jumps back and forth from one to the other with such celerity that it is difficult to pin-point exactly what his contentions are, when limited to those that properly can be raised in the present appeal. We do not deem the reasons assigned by the trial judge in the two previous appeals to the Baltimore City courts to be pertinent to the issues involved in this appeal. We shall confine ourselves to the issues of this appeal and determine whether the Supervisor acted arbitrarily or unlawfully in denying the license, and whether the trial court was justified in affirming such action.

The Charter & P.L.L. of Baltimore City (1949), §§ 204 et seq., in pertinent part, provide:

Sec. 205:

* * *

* * *

'Each applicant * * * must:

'* * * (b) Be of sound physique, with good eyesight and not subject to epilepsy, vertigo, heart trouble, or any other infirmity of body or mind which might render the applicant unfit for the safe operation of a taxicab.'

Sec. 209:

'Upon satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this sub-title, there shall be issued to the applicant a license, * * *'

And, Sec. 216:

'The Supervisor of the Taxicab Bureau is hereby vested with discretion to refuse a license to any applicant if, in his opinion, said license should not be granted because of the applicant's past criminal record, accident record, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by him. * * *.' (Italics added.)

Appellant does not attack the validity of the above sections, but argues that the authority given by them can only be exercised to protect the public health, safety, welfare, or morals, citing Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 95 L.Ed. 267 and Portsmouth Stove & Range Co. v. City of Baltimore, 156 Md. 244, 144 A. 357. With this proposition, we agree.

The decision of the Supervisor, in part follows:

'In the matter of your application filed July 9, 1962, for a taxicab driver's license, you are advised that we have received from Dr. Guttmacher his impression concerning you which I have reviewed and which is essentially negative.

'I have given careful consideration to your application, both in light of your history and of Dr. Guttmacher's report, and I am of the opinion that it would not be in the best interest of the public to grant you a taxicab driver's license.

'In my opinion, in light of your record before me, you have shown a marked animosity toward law and order. Within a comparatively short time you were twice [actually thrice] arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct on a public street. This conduct on each occasion resulted in the gathering of large crowds of young students and required dispersal by the police, while your cooperation with the police in abating the disorder was definitely lacking. Several of these arrests...