Title: City of Springfield, Missouri v. Adolph Belt, Jr.

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
 
 
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI,  
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Respondent,  
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC90324 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
ADOLPH BELT, JR., 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY 
The Honorable Mark Fitzsimmons, Judge 
 
Opinion issued March 2, 2010 
 
 
 
 
This is a $100 case.  But sometimes, it's not the money – it's the principle.  When 
Adolph Belt, Jr., a 30-year veteran of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and a former 
Kansas City police officer, received a notice that his car had been photographed running 
a red light in Springfield, he did not take the matter lightly.  Undeniably a traffic expert, 
Belt timed the yellow caution light at the intersection and found that it was rather quick.  
He also concluded that the stoplight and the cameras needed to be synchronized.  
The Springfield city code provides that hearings for violations of this ordinance 
are to be heard in an administrative proceeding.  In Belt's proceeding, the hearing 
examiner denied Belt's challenge to his citation and found him liable for the prescribed 
$100 penalty.  Belt then appealed, requesting a trial de novo before the circuit court.  The 
circuit court dismissed the request for a trial de novo, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear 
the appeal.  Belt now appeals the circuit court's dismissal, arguing he is entitled to a trial 
de novo for a municipal ordinance violation.   
Violations of municipal ordinances such as this one cannot be determined 
administratively but must be heard in a division of the circuit court.  Section 479.010, 
RSMo Supp. 2009.1  The administrative proceeding is void, and Belt's $100 penalty is 
vacated. 
Facts and Procedural History 
The city of Springfield notified Belt in July 2008 that on April 10, 2008, a motor 
vehicle registered in his name had been photographed running a red light by a red light 
traffic camera.  In the "Citation Traffic Signal Violation" issued to Belt, the city alleged 
that the "[r]ecord images" of his car were "evidence of a violation of Springfield City 
Code 106-1612 ...."  The citation provided that Belt either could pay the $100 fine or 
                                             
 
1 All statutory references are to RSMo Supp. 2009, unless otherwise indicated. 
2 Springfield city code section 106-161(d) provides:  
The owner or operator of a vehicle which is photographed by the automated 
traffic control system while in violation of section 106-166 shall be mailed 
a written notice of violation indicating the commencement of an action 
under this chapter.  Within 30 days of the issuance of the notice of 
violation, a vehicle owner who receives a notice of violation that will be 
contest the citation.  To contest the citation, Belt was required "to request a court date" 
and that if he chose to "appear in court, the minimum amount [he could] be charged is a 
$100.00 penalty."  (Emphasis added.) 
Following Belt's request for a court date, he received a "Notice of Contested 
Hearing on Photo Redlight Violation," which stated that he would have a contested 
hearing on August 1, 2008, at the "Springfield Municipal Court."  If he wished to receive 
a continuance, the application to do so would have to be made directly to the court.  The 
notice further informed Belt that "Article X of the Land Development Code" and 
"Chapter 536 of Missouri Revised Statutes" provided the relevant law governing 
administrative hearings.  The notice also stated that if he failed to appear and contest the 
case, "the Hearing Officer [would] likely enter a judgment against [him]" and that "the 
City [would] be represented by the Office of the Municipal Prosecutor."   
At his hearing,3 Belt contended that the yellow light was displayed for fewer than 
4.5 seconds and that "the [stop]light and the cameras need[ed] to be synchronized."  He 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
supported by evidence from the automated traffic control system record 
must either pay the civil penalty as set forth in this chapter or request an 
administrative hearing ....  The hearing examiner, as appointed by the city 
manager, shall take evidence and determine if the facts support a finding of 
a violation.  If the hearing examiner finds a violation occurred, an order 
shall be entered consistent with the remedies set forth in this chapter.  The 
order of the hearing examiner shall be considered the same as an order of a 
municipal judge for purposes of enforcement of the order ....   
 
 
Section 106-155(5) further provides that "[i]f a violation ... is enforced through the use of 
an automated red light traffic enforcement system, then the penalty shall be punishable by 
a fine in an amount not less than $100.00 and shall be a civil, non-point penalty ...."   
3 Belt's hearing was held on September 5, 2008, because he requested a continuance from 
his originally scheduled August 1, 2008 hearing. 
 
3
filed an affidavit stating that he had experience and knowledge of traffic accidents from 
working five years for the Kansas City police department and 30 years as a Missouri 
State Highway Patrol officer.  He also stated that he personally had observed the traffic 
light's cycle at the intersection where the pictures had been taken of him and, at the time 
that they had been taken, his stopwatch indicated that the yellow caution-light cycle was 
3.5 to 3.8 seconds on one date and 3.5 to 3.38 [sic] seconds on three other dates.4   
Belt's hearing was presided over by a person who also holds the position of 
Springfield municipal judge, Todd M. Thornhill.  However, Thornhill signed the 
"Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" as "Hearing Examiner."  Thornhill found that 
the city had shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle was being 
operated in violation of the red light ordinance and that [Belt] is the owner of the vehicle" 
under section 106-161(d)(1).  He further found no evidence supported Belt's assertion 
that the yellow light was displayed for fewer than 4.5 seconds.  He therefore imposed a 
$100 penalty against Belt.   
                                             
 
4  The record indicates that Belt found several articles about the problems associated with 
reduced timing for yellow lights.  One article indicated that when red light cameras are 
installed, the timing of yellow lights often is reduced to "trap[] motorists."  Tennessee: 
Refunds for Photo Tickets on Short Yellow, online at 
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp (all Internet materials accessed Feb. 25, 
2010, and available in the clerk of Court's case file).  Another article he found stated that 
a study in Texas had found that adding an additional second to yellow lights 
corresponded to a 40-percent reduction in crashes.  Study: Longer Yellows Reduce 
Crashes (Texas Transportation Institute), online at 
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp.  Even so, the city of Springfield had 
chosen to reduce its yellow-light timing at more than 100 intersections prior to starting 
red light camera ticketing.  Missouri:  City Lowers Yellow Light Time Before Installing 
Cameras, online at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1759.asp. 
 
4
Belt then filed an "Application for Trial de Novo" requesting a de novo appeal of 
Thornhill's determination.5  Thereafter, the city filed multiple motions to dismiss in 
which the city questioned the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction to grant a trial de 
novo in a case in which there had been an administrative decision issued by a hearing 
examiner as opposed to a criminal conviction by a municipal court division.6  The circuit 
court sustained the city's motion to dismiss with prejudice, entering a "Judgment of 
Dismissal" in which it found that it "lack[ed] jurisdiction to hear a Request for Trial de 
Novo in this matter."  After opinion in the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer.  
Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. 
Analysis 
 
Belt argues that because he was charged with a municipal ordinance violation for 
which a fine was assessed and was "tried" before a person who is a municipal judge, he is 
entitled to a trial de novo under section 479.200, RSMo 2000.7  The city responds that 
because it instituted an administrative action against Belt under the Missouri 
Administrative Procedure Act, all of chapter 479, including section 479.200, is 
inapplicable to Belt's case.   
                                             
 
5 Belt also filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to the Missouri Administrative 
Procedure Act (MAPA).  See chapter 536. 
6 "'[M]unicipal courts' – though they are funded by municipal governments and can be 
served by judges appointed locally – are divisions of the circuit court."  State v. Severe, 
__ S.W.3d __, 2010 WL 97997, at *3 n.6 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing Mo. Const. art. V, secs. 
23 and 27).   
7 Section 479.200.2 provides that "[i]n any case tried before a municipal judge who is 
licensed to practice law in this state ... the defendant shall have a right of trial de novo 
before a circuit judge or upon assignment before an associate circuit judge."   
 
5
 
Section 479.010 provides that "[v]iolations of municipal ordinances shall be heard 
and determined only before divisions of the circuit court as hereinafter provided in this 
chapter."  Under chapter 479, a city with a population of less than 400,000, such as the 
city of Springfield, may elect where the violations of its municipal ordinances may be 
heard and determined.  However, section 479.040 outlines the choices from which the 
city may choose:  The city may choose to have the violations heard and determined by an 
associate circuit judge of the circuit in which it is located, by a municipal judge or at a 
county municipal court if one is created in the county where the city is situated.  No 
provision is made for a city such as Springfield to have an administrative tribunal decide 
ordinance violations of this nature.8
 
The only reference in chapter 479 providing for administrative adjudication of 
municipal code violations is contained in section 479.011.  This section provides that 
"[a]ny city not within a county or any home rule city with more than four hundred 
thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county may establish ... an 
administrative system for adjudicating parking and other civil, nonmoving municipal 
code violations."  At present, this would allow only the cities of Kansas City and St. 
Louis to create such an administrative system.  Further, the administrative system at issue 
                                             
 
8 Where authorized by statute, municipalities do have some power to adjudicate certain 
ordinance violations administratively.  For example, zoning problems typically are 
resolved at the administrative level.  See City of St. Ann v. Elam, 661 S.W.2d 632, 634 
(Mo. App. 1983).  The procedure to do so has been created by statute.  For example, 
sections 89.080 and 89.090 allow a local legislative body to create a board of adjustment 
to hear and decide appeals concerning decisions made by an administrative official in the 
enforcement of certain zoning regulations and ordinances.  Decisions by the board of 
adjustment then can be appealed to the circuit court.  Section 89.110.   
 
6
here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a 
moving violation.  See Barbara C. Salken, The General Warrant of the Twentieth 
Century? A Fourth Amendment Solution to Unchecked Discretion to Arrest for Traffic 
Offenses, 62 TEMP. L. REV. 221, 270 (1989).   
 
In this case, the city of Springfield has created an administrative system to 
prosecute violations of Springfield city code section 106-161, a municipal ordinance.  If 
the owner of the vehicle that ran the red light chooses to have a "court date," the 
proceeding is overseen by a hearing examiner, not a municipal judge.9  This violates the 
statutory requirement that "violations of municipal ordinances be heard and determined 
only before divisions of the circuit court."10  Section 479.010.  The only administrative 
procedure that the legislature has set up for violations of municipal ordinances such as 
this one is for parking and other nonmoving violations; even then, this administrative 
procedure is allowed only in the cities of Kansas City and St. Louis. 
Conclusion 
 
The hearing examiner had no authority to penalize Belt for his car's violation of 
the red light ordinance.  The part of Springfield city code section 106-161 that provides 
for an administrative proceeding for violations of the section is inconsistent with 
                                             
 
9 In this case, the hearing examiner also happened to be a municipal judge.  It appears 
that this would violate the statutory provision prohibiting municipal judges from holding 
any other office in the municipality in which the municipal judge also serves as a judge.  
Section 479.020.6.   
10 Although article VI, section 19(a) of the Missouri constitution gives a charter city "all 
power which the legislature is authorized to grant," the municipality does not possess any 
powers that are "limited or denied by the constitution, by statute, or by the charter itself."  
Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Mayor's Comm'n on Human Rights of the City of 
Springfield, 791 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Mo. banc 1990).   
 
7
Missouri's statutes.  The administrative proceeding that occurred in this case is void.  See 
Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 791 S.W.2d at 387 (finding that because "the Mayor's 
Commission had no authority to determine that the respondent had violated the 
ordinance, ... that determination is void").  
The hearing examiner's decision penalizing Belt $100.00 for violating city code 
section 106-161 is vacated.11  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael A. Wolff, Judge 
 
All concur. 
                                             
 
11 A remand is not necessary.  Rule 84.14 provides that an "appellate court shall award a 
new trial or partial new trial, reverse or affirm the judgment or order of the trial court, in 
whole or in part, or give such judgment as the court ought to give.  Unless justice 
otherwise requires, the court shall dispose finally of the case."  (Emphasis added.)   
 
8