King v. City of Tulsa

• Citation: 415 P.2d 606
• Decision Date: 22 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. A--13601,A--13601
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Parties: Pete KING, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

Page 606

415 P.2d 606

Pete KING, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A--13601.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 22, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. City regulatory ordinances are ordinarily drawn under authority of the police power of the sovereignty, which power inures to the municipal government, when the city is formed under state authority.

2. Each state has police power to regulate the relative rights and duties of all persons, individuals, and corporations within its jurisdiction for the public convenience and the public good.

3. No principle is better established than that, when an owner devotes private property to the public use, he so devotes it bound with notice that it will be subject to reasonable public regulations.

4. Any city containing a population of more than 2,000 inhabitants may frame a charter for its own government, consistent with and subject to the Constitution and laws of the State.

5. A city adopting a charter is accorded full power of self-government, and as such municipal corporation, under its charter it has power to enact, ordain, and enforce ordinances for the purpose of protecting the public peace, order, health, morals, and safety of the inhabitants, even though general statutes exist relating to the same subjects.

6. Under constitutional provisions for adoption of home-rule charter, city adopting such charter is accorded full power of local self-government and, as such, municipal corporation has power to enact, ordain, and enforce ordinances for purpose of protecting public peace, order, health, morals, and safety of inhabitants, even though general statutes exist relating to same subjects.

7. Where the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by appeal to declare void an ordinance, every presumption is indulged in favor of the validity of the ordinance. The Court of Criminal Appeals will not declare such to be void if it can reasonably be sustained.

8. Municipality, clothed by statute with proprietary function, in the exercise of which it is responsible to public for prompt and efficient service, must be clothed with power to enable it to meet such requirement.

9. The regulation of hotels is a matter which is concerned with the health, morals and welfare of the public, and is therefore within the police power of a state, and where there are statutes providing for such regulation, one who conducts such an establishment accepts the duty of fulfilling the obligations imposed by the statutes. The regulations to be valid, must be reasonable and not calculated to discriminate arbitrarily against particular classes or individuals.

10. The power to regulate is commonly, but not always, committed to local bodies, such as municipal corporations, and whether or not the power has been so committed in a particular case depends on the interpretation of governing statutes.

11. Whether the judgment of the common council of the city in the present case was wise, or whether the requirement will produce hardship in particular instances, are matters with which this Court has nothing to do. It is impossible for us to say that the provisions of the ordinance are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. If there be room for fair debate, the Court of Criminal Appeals 'will not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body charged with the primary duty and responsibility of determining the question.'

12. It is the function of the courts to determine in each case whether, under the circumstances, the regulation is a reasonable exertion of governmental authority under the police powers, or whether it is arbitrary or discriminatory.

13. It is not unreasonable or oppressive to require the maintenance of hotel guest registration records, subject to police inspection, but such inspection should be limited to a specific period of time.

14. The police power is very broad and comprehensive, and is exercise to promote the health, comfort, safety, morals and welfare of society.

Appeal from the Municipal Criminal Court of City of Tulsa; Ralph R. Adkisson, Judge.

Pete King was convicted of the offense of refusing to allow inspection of the records of the guests of the Reeder Hotel by an authorized peace officer, and appeals. Affirmed.

Gordon L. Patten, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Charles E. Norman, City Atty., and Hubert H. Bryant, Asst. City Atty., City of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction in the Municipal Criminal Court of Tulsa, Oklahoma, wherein it was charged that the defendant, Pete King, on August 13, 1964 unlawfully and wrongfully refused to allow an inspection of the records of the guests of the Reeder Hotel by an authorized peace officer.

The charge was made under Title 27, Chap. 30, § 447 of the Tulsa Revised Ordinances. Defendant was arrested on August 14, 1964, entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a trial. The case came on for trial on August 18, 1964 and defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, on the grounds that the evidence to be offered was obtained in violation of the constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure; and, that the ordinance is unconstitutional, being contrary to the statutes of the State of Oklahoma, the laws of search and seizure, and invasion of private property. The trial court overruled defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant was found guilty, and was fined $10, plus court costs of $5.

In order to properly comprehend this situation, it is necessary to recite the sections of the ordinance, of which the defendant complaints.

Title 27, Chap. 30, Tulsa Revised Ordinance reads as follows:

'Section 444. Registration of Guests. Each and every person owning, conducting, or operating a hotel or rooming house in the City of Tulsa, as defined in this Chapter or as defined by the laws of the State is hereby required to keep a book or file in which the name, post office address, date of admission and departure shall be entered in the handwriting of the guest, provided, that the room assignment shall be added to said record by the proprietor of said establishment. No person shall be received as a guest of any hotel or rooming house who shall refuse to register as required by this Chapter.

'Section 447: Inspection or Records. Records of guests which are required by this Chapter to be kept by proprietors of hotels and rooming houses shall at all times be subject to inspection of any peace officer of the United States, or the State of Oklahoma or of any peace officer of the City of Tulsa.'

The penalty clause of Section 452, of Chapter 30, of the Tulsa City Ordinances, provides as follows:

'Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be fined in any sum not exceeding the sum of $20.00 including costs. Each days violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constituted and be a separate offense.'

Only one witness testified and that was Mr. Roy Hunt, the Tulsa Policeman, who made the arrest. That portion of his testimony, which has some bearing on this matter, was that on August 13, 1964 he requested the defendant to permit him to inspect the registration records of defendant's hotel, the Reeder Hotel in Tulsa, back to July 1, 1964; that the defendant refused to permit the inspection, so Officer Hunt obtained a warrant for his arrest for violation of the ordinance.

At the close of Officer Hunt's testimony, when the motion to suppress was overruled, the City Attorney and the defendant stipulated that the testimony of the officer constituted the City's case. The defendant did not take the witness stand to testify, but attempted to offer a demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled. The court thereupon found the defendant guilty, and set sentence date for September 4. On that date, defendant filed a motion for new trial, and sentence was passed until September 11, 1964.

In defendant's motion for new trial, he sets out four errors, which will be the same considered by this Court. They are: that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress; that the ordinance under which defendant was prosecuted is contrary to the statutes and constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and the United States, in that the same is in violation of the search and seizure laws of the State of Oklahoma, and of the United States; that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or in contrary to law; and errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the defendant.

In his brief, defendant argues the errors under two...