Opinion ID: 1876420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brooks v. State

Text: This Court addressed the constitutionality of sections 571.094 and 50.535, RSMo Supp.2004, in Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. banc 2004). In Brooks , a group of taxpayers alleged that the Concealed-Carry Act violates the constitution and that the funding scheme of section 571.094 violated the Hancock Amendment. Id. at 846. The Hancock Amendment prohibits the state from requiring any new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing, or from shifting the tax burdens to counties and other political subdivisions. Mo. Const. art. X, section 16. The plaintiffs in Brooks argued that section 571.094 violated this Hancock Amendment prohibition against unfunded mandates by requiring expanded activities of the county sheriff without providing full state financing. Id. at 848. The Court in Brooks upheld the constitutionality of the Concealed-Carry Act, but concluded that the funding provisions did not comply with the Hancock Amendment. In evaluating the constitutionality of section 571.094 under the Hancock Amendment, the Court considered whether the requisite processing fee was sufficient to cover the expenses of processing the application. Id. at 850. The Court noted that section 571.094.10 instructed county sheriffs to deposit the processing fees into the sheriff's revolving fund. Id. at 848. Once the processing fees were deposited in the revolving fund, section 50.535, RSMo Supp.2004, mandated that the sheriff could only use the revolving fund principal for the purchase of equipment and to provide training. Since there are expenses involved in the permit processing beyond the purchase of equipment and training, however, section 571.094 required expanded activities without full state financing. Id. at 850. Because these statutes contained unfunded mandates, the Court held that sections 571.094 and 50.535, RSMo Supp.2004, violated the Hancock Amendment. Id. The plaintiffs in Brooks presented evidence that the permit fee was not sufficient to cover the costs of complying with the law in Camden, Cape Girardeau, Greene and Jackson counties. Id. at 851. After determining that section 571.094 and 50.535, RSMo Supp.2004, contained an unfunded mandate, the Court in Brooks entered judgment enjoining the state from enforcing section 571.094 in these four counties. Id.