Thomas v. City of Oklahoma City, 87440
| Decision Date | 30 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 87440,87440,3 |
| Citation | 955 P.2d 747,1998 OK CIV APP 14 |
| Parties | 1998 OK CIV APP 14 Robert E. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. The CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants/Appellees. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Robert J. Unruh, Jr., Oklahoma City, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
William O. West, Municipal Counselor, Susan D. Randall, Assistant Municipal Counselor, Oklahoma City, for Defendants/Appellees.
¶1 Plaintiffs/Appellants Robert E. Thomas, Barbara Cross, Walter Wallace, and Gerald Miller ("taxi drivers") appeal the trial court's denial of a permanent injunction against enforcement of an Oklahoma City ordinance by Defendants/Appellees the City of Oklahoma City, Mayor Ronald J. Norick, City Manager Donald D. Bown, and Chief of Police Sam Gonzales (City). Because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and the denial of the injunction is not against the clear weight of the evidence, we affirm.
¶2 On December 8, 1993, the City published Ordinance No. 20,070, an emergency ordinance which created the Vehicle for Hire Committee and changed the suspension of certificate, as well as the notice and hearing provisions for persons holding certificates to operate vehicles for hire. 1 And, pertinent to the instant proceedings, Ordinance No. 20,070 required that all new applicants for a certificate of convenience and necessity take a "Driver's Training Program" before approval of certificate.
¶3 Section 56-120 of Ordinance 20,070 provided that the City adopted a taxicab driver's training program to include at least 35 hours of instruction in 1) passenger relations/professionalism, 2) defensive driving, 3) knowledge of service area, 4) rules and regulations, 5) drivers and passengers health and safety, and 6) emergency care training. Section 56-131 of Ordinance 20,070 added that any person granted a driver's permit to operate a taxicab shall present and maintain a hygienically clean, neat and well-groomed personal appearance while on duty. 2
¶4 Taxi drivers sought an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of Ordinance 20,070. On July 15, 1994, the district court held that § 56-120 of Ordinance 20,070 was unconstitutional because it required the driver training course only for taxi drivers and not for drivers of all vehicles for hire. The City then enacted Ordinance 20,216, which required all drivers of vehicles for hire to complete a driver's training program before receiving certificates. 3 Taxi drivers then sought a temporary injunction against enforcement of Ordinance 20,216, which was denied.
¶5 Taxi drivers appealed the denial of the temporary injunction and requested a stay pending appeal from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted taxi drivers' stay of enforcement pending appeal May 2, 1995. In an unpublished opinion in Case No. 85,013, this court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion for temporary injunction, stayed the enforcement of § 56-2 of Ordinance 20,216 until final disposition of this matter, and remanded this matter to the trial court.
¶6 Trial on the merits was held March 20, 1996. The district court filed its order April 9, 1996, finding that Ordinance 20,216 does not violate any city, state or federal law and is constitutional. The court therefore denied taxi drivers' petition for a permanent injunction against enforcement of Ordinance 20,216. Taxi drivers then filed the instant appeal. Taxi drivers argue that Ordinance 20,216 is preempted by state law, that the ordinance violates taxi drivers' fundamental rights, and that the City violated the Open Meetings Act. We address taxi drivers' allegations of error in order.
¶7 Taxi drivers first argue that the City exceeded the powers granted to it by the Legislature to regulate vehicles for hire. Taxi drivers expressly argue that the Oklahoma statutes do not give the City the right to regulate the operation of taxicabs. However, we need not determine whether Oklahoma statutes expressly give the City the right to regulate taxicabs as in Ordinance 20,216. The City is a home-rule charter city under Article 18, section 3(a) of the Oklahoma Constitution. Chartered home-rule cities have full power of local government and may enact ordinances to protect the public peace, order, health, morals, and safety, even though state statutes may address the same subjects. Ex Parte Gammel, 89 Okla.Crim. 400, 208 P.2d 961, 965; Article I, § 3, Oklahoma City Charter. We may not find a conflict between an ordinance enacted by a chartered home-rule city and Oklahoma statutes unless each contains Moore v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK 43, 561 P.2d 961, 963. We have reviewed 11 O.S. 1991 § 22-118 which grants municipal governing bodies "full police powers for the purpose of preserving public health, safety and welfare over the operation, regulation and control of taxicabs within the limits of the municipality." While the police powers granted in § 22-118 are limited to certain specified powers and subjects, we do not find that § 22-118 expressly limits the powers of home-rule cities. Nor do we find that § 22-118, by granting all municipal governing bodies limited authority to regulate taxicabs, impliedly prohibits home-rule cities from regulating taxicabs under their general police powers. Thus, we find no inconsistent and irreconcilable conditions in § 22-118 and Ordinance 20,216.
¶8 Municipal ordinances are presumed valid and the burden falls on taxi drivers to prove that Ordinance 20,216 is invalid. City of Tulsa By and Through Tulsa Airport Authority v. Air Tulsa, Inc., 1992 OK 146, 851 P.2d 519; Ex Parte Davis, 82 Okla.Crim. 444, 172 P.2d 340 (1946). Ordinance 20,216 was enacted pursuant to the police powers granted to the City in Art. I, § 3 of the Oklahoma City Charter. The ordinance states that it is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of inhabitants and visitors to the City. The purpose of the ordinance is "to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare by requiring all drivers of vehicles for hire to be properly trained and to demonstrate evidence of such training prior to operation of the vehicle for hire." We find this stated purpose, as well as the provisions of Ordinance 20,216, is not inconsistent with any Oklahoma statute. Taxi drivers presented evidence that the ordinance was not "necessary" because of in-house training programs, and that a particular driver's training program was worthless. However, subjective opinions of necessity of the ordinance, or the quality of its implementation are not the test. Taxi drivers have failed to prove that Ordinance 20,216 conflicts with state law. Therefore, because the City is a chartered home-rule city, the instant exercise of the city's police powers is valid.
¶9 Taxi drivers next assert that Ordinance 20,216 violates their constitutionally protected "liberty interests, privacy rights, and freedom of expression." Ordinances passed by municipalities under their police powers will not be overturned unless they are "manifestly unreasonable and oppressive, unwarrantedly invade private rights, clearly transcend the police powers given to them, or infringe upon the rights secured by fundamental law." Farmer v. City of Sapulpa, 1982 OK 58, 645 P.2d 518. Although taxi drivers state in their brief that it is clear that Ordinance 20,216 meets all of the above criteria for judicial interference, taxi drivers fail to explain how or why the ordinance violates their fundamental rights.
¶10 The United States Supreme Court in Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976), held that the promotion of safety is at the core of the state's police power. Accordingly, the burden rests on taxi drivers to show there is no rational connection between the regulation and the promotion of safety of persons and property. Kelley, 425 U.S. at 247, 96 S.Ct. at 1446. Taxi drivers have not established that the ordinance in question is irrational and arbitrary as required by Kelley and Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539, 543 (10th Cir.1987) (). We therefore find no merit in taxi drivers' contention that the driver training required by Ordinance 20,216 violates their fundamental rights.
¶11 Taxi drivers' final argument in this appeal is that the City violated the Open Meeting Act. 4 Although taxi drivers' argument fails to explain which meeting of what group violated the Open Meeting Act, we perceive from taxi drivers' statement of the case preceding their arguments that taxi drivers' complaint relates to a meeting of the City's Traffic Commission. From the City's brief on appeal, it appears that at the November 21, 1994 meeting of the Oklahoma City Traffic and Transportation Commission, the commission approved Metro Transit's (the City's bus service) proposed training program which was designed to comply with Ordinance 20,216. Taxi drivers appear to argue that the acceptance of Metro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State ex rel. Dps
...¶ 10 The burden was on Smith to challenge the presumption of validity of the municipal ordinance. See Thomas v. The City of Oklahoma City, 1998 OK CIV APP 14, 955 P.2d 747. She presented evidence that she complied with the state statute and asked that the statute be noticed by the ¶ 11 None......