City of Billings v. Weatherwax

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: July 2, 1981
• Docket: 80-433
• Status: Published

Opinion

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 /