Title: CITY OF BILLINGS v WEATHERWAX
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-433
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 1981

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 Filed: ~ i l L 2 - Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1981 Decided: JUL 4 MI Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Weatherwax a p p e a l s a Y e l l o w s t o n e County D i s t r i c t Court 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 . Douglas Weatherwax was c i t e d on A p r i l 29, 1980, f o r d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r i n 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 of t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . The ordinance p r o v i d e s : " I t is unlawful and p u n i s h a b l e a s provided i n S e c t i o n 11.40.050 f o r any person who is under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l t o a degree which r e n d e r s him i n c a p a b l e of 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 b e i n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of any motor v e h i c l e w i t h i n t h i s m u n i c i p a l i t y . " (Emphasis d e f e n d a n t ' s . ) On May 27, 1980, t r i a l was h e l d and d e f e n d a n t was found t o be i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e o r d i n a n c e . Appeal was t h e n t a k e n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and t h e m a t t e r was s e t f o r t r i a l i n September 1980. On J u l y 2 d e f e n d a n t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint on t h e grounds t h a t t h e c i t y o r d i n a n c e d i d n o t comply w i t h s e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA, and was, t h e r e f o r e , i n v a l i d . S e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA, s t a t e s : " I t is unlawful and p u n i s h a b l e a s provided i n s e c t i o n 61-8-714(1) f o r any person who is under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f : " ( a ) a l c o h o l t o d r i v e o r b e i n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of 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- d a n t ' s . ) The D i s t r i c t Court denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion w i t h o u t o p i n i o n . On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , t r i a l was h e l d and d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y of d r i v i n g while under t h e i n f l u e n c e i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e T r a f f i c Code of t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . Defendant now a p p e a l s . The only q u e s t i o n which t h i s Court is asked t o 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 t h e y e a r s t h i s Court h a s developed s e v e r a l fundamental p r i n c i p l e s w i t h regard t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n 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 . C l e a r l y , t h e organized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t h i s s t a t e have o n l y such power a s 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. 138, 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 municipal o r d i n a n c e must be i n harmony w i t h t h e law of t h e s t a t e . 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 narrow q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s , t h e r e f o r e , is whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 4 0 1 ( 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 of t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . W e f i n d t h a t t h e y a r e . The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s s e e n f i t t o g r a n t c e r t a i n a u t h o r i t y t o l o c a l governments, and o n l y i f t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s has gone beyond t h a t a u t h o r i t y i n e n a c t i n g t h e ordinance w i l l w e i n v a l i d a t e it. I n doing s o w e must be persuaded t h a t s t a t e 1a.w e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y or i m p l i e d l y p r o h i b i t s such an o r d i n a n c e , a s t h e i n v a l i d a t i o n of l o c a l laws is n o t t o be undertaken l i g h t l y by t h i s Court. See C i t y of Kodiak v . Jackson (Alaska 1 9 7 8 ) , 584 P.2d 1130, 1132-33. S e c t i o n 6 1 - 1 2 - 1 0 1 ( 1 2 ) , MCA, empowers a c i t y t o " [ r e g u l a t e ] o r [ p r o h i b i t ] any person who is under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r from d r i v i n g o r being 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 any v e h i c l e w i t h i n t h e i n c o r p o r a t e d l i m i t s of any c i t y o r town." T h i s C o u r t ' s c o n s t t u t i o n a l l i c e n s e is n o t a p o e t i c one. The l e g i s l a t u r e h a s e x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o adopt such 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 t h a n m i r r o r t h e corresponding s t a t e s t a t u t e does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y make t h e o r d i n a n c e a n i n v a l i d e x e r c i s e of a u t h o r i t y . A l t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e ordinance is i n c o n f l i c t w i t h s e c t i o n 6 1 - 8 - 4 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA, may be f a c i a l l y p e r s u a s i v e , when t h a t s e c t i o n is read i n p a r i m a t e r i a with s e c t i o n 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. M i l l e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 616 P.2d 313, 320, 37 St.Rep. 1523, 1529. The ordinance has every appearance of being p r e c i s e l y what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e contemplated, and t h i s Court w i l l n o t e x a l t t h e form of one s t a t u t e over t h e s u b s t a n c e of another t o i n v a l i d a t e it. Af f irmed. W e concur: i /