## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN BAYLISS; KAREN RAE QUARLES, and all pawn customers similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. CITY OF TULSA, an incorporated municipality separately and as Susan Savage, Tulsa Mayor; TULSA CITY COUNCIL, a municipal Corporation within Tulsa County separately and as B.S. Robert, Darla Hall, Mike Patrick, Gary Watts, Robert Nelson, James Hogue, Sr., John Benjamin, Vickie Cleveland, and Dewey Bartlett, Jr., all Tulsa City Councilmembers; B.S. ROBERTS; DARLA HALL; MIKE PATRICK; GARY WATTS; ROBERT NELSON; JAMES HOGUE, SR.; JOHN BENJAMIN; VICKIE CLEVELAND; DEWEY BARTLETT, JR.; TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT, sued as: Ron Cunningham, a police officer for the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and Ron Palmer, the duly appointed Chief of Police of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma; RON CUNNINGHAM, an individual; RON PALMER, an individual; OKLAHOMA PROPERTY RECOVERY ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated organization, separately and as Ron Cunningham, president,

Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-5241 (D. Ct. No. 96-CV-199-K) (N. D. Okla.)*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court granting the motion of the defendant City of Tulsa to dismiss this action unde r Rule 12(b)(6) Fed.R.Civ.P. We review such a dismissal de novo and, accept as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint, construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and resolve all reasonable inferences i n plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs are pawnshop customers who bring this purported class a ction to challenge the constitutionality of the Oklahoma Pawn Broker Act, 59 O.S. § 1501 et seq. (“the Act”). Plaintiffs in this action challenge the con stitutionality of the application of the Act as it is applied by the Tulsa Municipal Code Ordinance Ch. 11 § 1104(C) which states that pawn brokers “shall cau se to be delivered” their reports to law enforcement. Arguing that the Act p rohibits the passage of3

municipal ordinances more restrictive than the Act itself, plaintiffs argue that the reporting requirements of the Tulsa Municipal Code result in an unconstitutional application of the Act. We disagree and affirm. In our view, the issues raised by the pawnshop cust omers in this case are controlled by S&S Pawn Shop, Inc. v. City of Del C ity , 947 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1991) and Winters v. Bd. of County Comm. , 4 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1539 (1994). Plaintiffs attempt to di stinguish those cases by arguing that this case is brought by two pawnshop c ustomers instead of by pawn brokers. The plaintiffs allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment and argue that the Tulsa Ordinance which states that pawn brokers “shall cause to be delivered” pawnshop reports to law enforcement somehow disting uishes this case from the cases previously decided by this circuit. Plaintif fs cannot evade the well established principal that they cannot have a legit imate expectation of privacy in information that was voluntarily given to third parties. Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Obrien, Inc. , 467 U.S. 735, 743 (1984). The pawnshop business is a highly regulated business in almost all states. Ok lahoma is no exception. Anyone who enters into a transaction with a pawnshop enter s into a public transaction that is the subject of a full array of state and local l aws regarding law enforcement’s entitlement and access to information regarding the se transactions. Pawnshop customers simply have no subjective expectation of privacy in these public4

transactions. The Oklahoma Pawn Broker Act and the Tulsa Ordinanc e clearly are reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate g overnmental interest. Winters v. Board of County Commissioners , 4 F. 3d 848 (10th Cir. 1993). We hold that there is no distinction between this action and tho se previously decided by this circuit. We therefore AFFIRM the order of the district court for substantially the reasons given by the district court. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge