City of Billings v. Weatherwax

No. 80-433
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
CITY OF BILLINGS,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
DOUGLAS WEATHERWAX,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone.
Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Terry L. Seiffert, Billings, Montana
For Respondent :
Joe Leckie, City Attorney, Billings, Montana
Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1981
Decided: JUL 4 MI
~ilL2-
Filed:
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
the Court.
Weatherwax a p p e a l s a Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t
C o u r t c o n v i c t i o n f o r d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l
p u r s u a n t t o a C i t y of B i l l i n g s t r a f f i c o r d i n a n c e .
D o u g l a s Weatherwax was c i t e d on A p r i l 2 9 , 1980, f o r
driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in
v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 11.40.020 of t h e T r a f f i c Code o f the
C i t y of B i l l i n g s . The o r d i n a n c e p r o v i d e s :
" I t i s u n l a w f u l and p u n i s h a b l e a s p r o v i d e d i n
S e c t i o n 1 1 . 4 0 . 0 5 0 f o r any p e r s o n who i s under
t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l t o a d e g r e e which
r e n d e r s him i n c a p a b l e o f s a f e l y d r i v i n g a
motor v e h i c l e t o d r i v e o r be i n a c t u a l
p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l o f a n y motor v e h i c l e w i t h i n
t h i s municipality." (Emphasis d e f e n d a n t ' s . )
On May 2 7 , 1980, trial was held and d e f e n d a n t was
f o u n d t o be i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e o r d i n a n c e . A p p e a l was t h e n
taken to the District Court, and the matter was set for
trial in September 1980. On July 2 defendant moved to
d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e c i t y o r d i n a n c e
did not comply w i t h section 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA, and w a s ,
therefore, invalid. S e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA, states:
" I t is u n l a w f u l and p u n i s h a b l e a s p r o v i d e d i n
s e c t i o n 61-8-714(1) f o r a n y p e r s o n who i s
under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f :
" ( a ) alcohol t o d r i v e or be i n a c t u a l
p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l o f a motor v e h i c l e upon t h e
highways of t h i s s t a t e . " (Emphasis defen-
dant's. )
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n w i t h o u t
opinion. On September 10, 1980, trial was held and
defendant was found guilty of driving while under the
influence i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e T r a f f i c Code o f t h e C i t y of
Billings. D e f e n d a n t now a p p e a l s .
The only question which this Court is asked to
r e s o l v e is whether s e c t i o n 11.40.020 of t h e B i l l i n g s T r a f f i c
Code c o n f l i c t s w i t h s t a t e law s o a s t o make t h e o r d i n a n c e
i n v a l i d i n exceeding t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n .
Over the years this Court has developed several
fundamental principles with regard to the interaction of
s t a t e s t a t u t e s and c i t y o r d i n a n c e s . Clearly, the organized
municipalities in this state have only such power as is
g r a n t e d them by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. Herold
( 1 9 5 6 ) , 130 Mont. 1 3 8 , 296 P.2d 263. Moreover, a s between
t h e two s o v e r e i g n s , t h e c i t y ' s a u t h o r i t y is s u b o r d i n a t e t o
t h a t of t h e s t a t e . A m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e m u s t be i n harmony
with the law o f the state. S t a t e v. Haswell ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147
Mont. 492, 414 P.2d 652.
The r e l a t i v e l y n a r r o w q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s , therefore,
is whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s of section 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA,
a r e harmonious w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 11.40.020 of
t h e T r a f f i c Code o f t h e C i t y o f B i l l i n g s . W e find t h a t they
are.
The legislature has seen f i t to grant certain
authority to local governments, and only if the C i t y of
Billings has gone beyond that authority in enacting the
ordinance w i l l we invalidate it. I n d o i n g s o w e m u s t be
persuaded that state 1a.w either expressly or impliedly
prohibits such an ordinance, as the i n v a l i d a t i o n of local
laws i s n o t t o be u n d e r t a k e n l i g h t l y by t h i s Court. See
City of Kodiak v. Jackson (Alaska 1978), 584 P.2d 1130,
1132-33.
Section 61-12-101(12), MCA, empowers a city to
"[regulate] or [prohibit] any person who is under the
influence of intoxicating liquor from d r i v i n g o r being in
actual physical control of any vehicle within the
i n c o r p o r a t e d l i m i t s o f any c i t y o r t o w n . "
This Court's consttutional license is not a poetic
one. The legislature has expressly granted the City of
B i l l i n g s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a d o p t s u c h an o r d i n a n c e . The f a c t
t h a t t h e C i t y used language t h a t d i d l e s s than mirror the
c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t a t e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y make t h e
ordinance an invalid exercise of authority. Although
defendant's belief that the ordinance is in conflict with
section 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA, may be facially persuasive,
when that section is read in p a r i materia with section
61-12-101(12), MCA, t h e c o n f l i c t is r e s o l v e d . See M i l l e r v.
Miller (1980), Mont. , 616 P.2d 313, 320, 37
St.Rep. 1523, 1529. The o r d i n a n c e h a s e v e r y a p p e a r a n c e o f
b e i n g p r e c i s e l y what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n t e m p l a t e d , and t h i s
Court will not exalt the form of one statute over the
s u b s t a n c e of a n o t h e r t o i n v a l i d a t e i t .
Af f i r m e d .
W concur:
e
i /