Quintana v. Edgewater Municipal Court, 25236
| Decision Date | 26 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25236,25236 |
| Citation | 498 P.2d 931,179 Colo. 90 |
| Parties | Flora Helen QUINTANA and Clarence William Hansen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDGEWATER MUNICIPAL COURT et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Alan H. Bucholtz, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Howe & Windholz, Charles B. Howe, Boulder, for defendants-appellees.
Raymond C. Johnson, Lakewood, amicus curiae, City of Lakewood.
The plaintiffs brought this action under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) to prohibit proceedings in the Edgewater Municipal Court against the plaintiffs for violation of Edgewater's shoplifting ordinance. The plaintiffs claim the ordinance is invalid because it is in conflict with the theft statute. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S1963, 40--5--2. The district court denied relief. We reverse.
The ordinance in question defines shoplifting as wilfully and unlawfully taking possession of any goods, wares or merchandise held for sale by a store with the intention of converting it to the use of the person so taking possession. Edgewater ordinances 850.4--1.
Colorado's theft statute makes the theft of an article having a value which does not exceed $100 a misdemeanor, and makes the crime a felony if the article stolen has a value in excess of $100.
The trial court made three conclusions of law, which were to the following effect:
1. The shoplifting ordinance involves a matter of 'concurrent and mixed concern' which can be regulated by both state and home rule cities.
2. The ordinance does not conflict with the theft statute.
3. The Colorado General Assembly has not expressly pre-empted the subject.
Except for the fact that the ordinance applies to the shoplifting of articles having a value in excess of $100, as well as those of lesser value, we would agree with the trial court. Municipal courts are particularly adaptable to the handling of the crime of shoplifting of articles of relatively small value. This type of theft constitutes a great problem and should be combated not only by our state authorities in state courts, but by our police departments in municipal courts. The reasoning of Woolverton v. Denver, 146 Colo. 247, 361 P.2d 982 (1961), and of Vela v. People, Colo., 484 P.2d 1204 (1971), is applicable. Gazotti v. Denver, 143 Colo. 311, 352 P.2d 963 (1960), held that cities may not legislate upon larceny in general. This is not applicable here as the Edgewater ordinance is directed to a particular variety of theft which, as stated, is of both statewide and municipal concern.
When, however, Edgewater did not limit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLong v. City and County of Denver
...Colo., 553 P.2d 822); assault and battery (City of Aurora v. Martin, 181 Colo. 72, 507 P.2d 868); shoplifting (Quintana v. Edgewater Municipal Court, 179 Colo. 90, 498 P.2d 931); disturbance of the peace (Vela v. People, 174 Colo. 465, 484 P.2d 1204); gambling (Woolverton v. City and County......
-
R.E.N. v. City of Colorado Springs
...and deterring juveniles who commit minor offenses such as shoplifting and unlawful concealment. Cf. Quintana v. Edgewater Mun. Court, 179 Colo. 90, 92, 498 P.2d 931, 932 (1972) (shoplifting of items of relatively small value "constitutes a great problem and should be combated not only by ou......
-
City of Aurora v. Martin, C--224
...not concerned here with a municipal ordinance which has intruded into a state established felony category. See Quintana v. Edgewater Municipal Court, Colo., 498 P.2d 931 (1972). Neither are we concerned with the question of whether the subject of assault and battery so requires state-wide u......
-
Avalos v. People
... ... No. 24059 ... Supreme Court" of Colorado, En Banc ... June 26, 1972 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
...245 P. 720 (1926); Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Roberts, 169 Colo. 316, 455 P.2d 652 (1969);Quintana v. Edgewater Mun. Court, 178 Colo. 90, 498 P.2d 931 (1972); Clinic Masters, Inc. v. District Court, 192 Colo. 120, 556 P.2d 473 (1976); Reed v. Dolan, 195 Colo. 193, 577 P.2d 284 (1978); People......
-
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
...245 P. 720 (1926); Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Roberts, 169 Colo. 316, 455 P.2d 652 (1969);Quintana v. Edgewater Mun. Court, 178 Colo. 90, 498 P.2d 931 (1972); Clinic Masters, Inc. v. District Court, 192 Colo. 120, 556 P.2d 473 (1976); Reed v. Dolan, 195 Colo. 193, 577 P.2d 284 (1978); People......
-
ARTICLE VI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
...245 P. 720 (1926); Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Roberts, 169 Colo. 316, 455 P.2d 652 (1969); Quintana v. Edgewater Mun. Court, 178 Colo. 90, 498 P.2d 931 (1972); Clinic Masters, Inc. v. District Court, 192 Colo. 120, 556 P.2d 473 (1976); Reed v. Dolan, 195 Colo. 193, 577 P.2d 284 (1978); Peopl......
-
The Developmentally Disabled in Colorado
...52 supra at 812; see also City of Greeley v. Ells, 527 P.2d 538 (Colo., 1974). 57. See Vela v. People, 484 P.2d 1204 (Colo., 1971). 58. 498 P.2d 931 (Colo., 1972). 59. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. v. Temple, 491 P.2d 1371, 1374 (Colo., 1971). 60. See So. Burlington County N.A.A.C.P.......