Source: http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2000/2000-055.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:58:00+00:00

Document:
A city or county can enact local legislation to prohibit "ticket scalping" if the governing body concludes that such activity is detrimental to the peace, health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Moreover, a city or county may enforce such legislation on private property, state-owned property, and on federal highways. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-4104; K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 19-101a, as amended by L. 2000, Ch. 159, § 2; 19-101d; 22-2401a; Kan. Const., Art. 12, § 5.
You inquire whether a city or county can enact local legislation to prohibit "ticket scalping" and whether such an ordinance or resolution can be enforced on private property, state-owned property and on federal highways.
Our understanding of "ticket scalping" is that it is a practice where a person resells a ticket to an entertainment or sporting event for a price in excess of the price printed on the ticket. Legislation introduced last session which would have criminalized such activity failed to become Kansas law.(3) Because city and county home rule encompass broad police power regulation,(4) and because there currently is no uniform enactment on scalping, it is our opinion that cities and counties may enact legislation prohibiting ticket scalping if a governing body concludes that such activity is detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
While there are no Kansas appellate court decisions concerning the enforcement of a municipal ordinance on state-owned property, the Ohio Court of Appeals has addressed this issue. In City of Columbus v. Gantner,(11) the defendant challenged his conviction for violating an ordinance that prohibited horse race wagering by arguing that the municipal court had no jurisdiction because the defendant was arrested on the grounds of the state capitol which was located within the city's boundaries. The defendant contended unsuccessfully that the state had exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of statutes that provided for policing the grounds by state employees. The Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed and concluded that the statutes in question did not deprive the City of Columbus from enforcing its police regulations on statehouse grounds.
Enforcing a ticket scalping ordinance on state-owned property is different from the situation in State ex rel. Schneider v. City of Kansas City(12) where the City attempted to require the State of Kansas to abide by the City's building code. In that case, the Kansas Supreme Court concluded that the City of Kansas City could not require the State to abide by the City's building code because the State already had a comprehensive set of building codes and regulations. In the ticket scalping situation, a city or a county is not requiring the state, as an entity, to comply with such local legislation. Rather, if a city/county prohibits this kind of activity, individuals who violate this local legislation may subject themselves to prosecution regardless of whether the illegal activity occurs on private property or state-owned property.
Our research detected no federal law that addresses ticket scalping on federal highways and, therefore, in the absence of such legislation, cities and counties may enforce ticket scalping ordinances/resolutions on federal highways.
1. Kan. Const. Art. 12, § 5; K.S.A. 1999 Supp.19-101a, as amended by L. 2000, Ch. 159, § 2.
2. Blevins v. Hiebert, 247 Kan. 1, 5 (1990).
3. 2000 Substitute for House Bill No. 2653.
4. McCarthy v. City of Leawood, 257 Kan. 566, 584 (1995); Cardarella v. City of Overland Park, 228 Kan. 698, 702 (1980); Heim, Home Rule Power for Cities and Counties in Kansas, 66 Journal of the Kansas Bar Association, 26 (January, 1997).
5. 62 C.J.S. Mun. Corp. § 156, 443; McQuillan, Mun. Corp. §§ 24.55 and 15.31 (3rd Ed).
6. McQuillan, Mun. Corp. § 15.32 (3rd Ed).
7. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 19-101d.
8. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 22-2401a.
10. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 19-101d; K.S.A.12-4104.
11. 98 N.E.2d 75 (Ohio, 1950).
12. 228 Kan. 25 (1980).
13. U.S. Const., Art. VI, Cl. 2 invalidates state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law.
14. 105 S.Ct. 2371, 471 U.S. 707, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985).

References: § 2
 Art. 12
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 12
 § 5
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 156
 § 15