Opinion ID: 1472466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Preemption of the County Code

Text: The Superior Court also held that Section 6636 preempts the counterpart New Castle County Code provision, [17] because Section 6636 (a state statute) and the counterpart County Code provision conflict. Those provisions conflict, the trial court ruled, because the County Code permits the admission of smoke detector violation evidence but Section 6636 precludes it. That ruling, the plaintiffs urge, is erroneous, because the Delaware Constitution authorizes New Castle County to adopt ordinances, laws or rules regulating buildings and other structures, and unless the state statute on its face purports to be exclusive or the substance of the state and county regulatory provisions is inconsistent, there is no conflict that justifies preemption. In Delaware, the State and its political subdivisions are permitted to enact similar provisions and regulations, so long as the two regulations do not conflict. [18] But where [a] conflict exists between a state statute and a municipal ordinance, the statute must always prevail. [19] The predominant test for conflict in a preemption analysis is whether the state statute was intended to be exclusive. [20] Legislative intent to make a state statute exclusive of any regulation of the same subject matter by a political subdivision may be express or implied. [21] Express exclusivity intent exists where the statutory text or legislative history explicitly provides or demonstrates that the state statute is intended to replace or prevail over any pre-existing laws or ordinances that govern the same subject matter. [22] Implied exclusivity intent may be found where the two regulations are inconsistent; for example, where a state statute prohibits an act that is permitted by a local ordinance. [23] To be inconsistent by implication, however, the local ordinance must hinder the objectives of the state statute. [24] No exclusivity intent, express or implied, can be found in Section 6636. No express language in that statute suggests that the General Assembly intended that provision to be the exclusive vehicle for regulating smoke detectors. To the contrary, Section 6633(b), which governs the installation of smoke detectors, provides that: [w]here there is a conflict between installation requirements, this section shall be interpreted to require the more strict of the installation specifications for a particular occupancy. [25] Although Section 6633(b) addresses a conflict between the State Fire Prevention Regulations and local building codes, it signals that the General Assembly did not intend for the statute to be the exclusive body of law regulating smoke detectors. Thus, unless there is an implied intent that the state statute be exclusive, there is no preemption. The Court next addresses that inquiry. The New Castle County Code and Section 6636 are not implicitly inconsistent. Although both provisions regulate the placement and maintenance of smoke detectors in rental apartments, concurrent regulation of the same subject matter, without more, does not create a preemption justifying conflict. [26] To be inconsistent, the county ordinance must hinder the objectives of the state statute. [27] The trial court found the two provisions to be inconsistent, because Section 6636 precluded the admission of evidence of noncompliance with smoke detector regulations while the County Code permitted it. The flaw in the trial court's reasoning stems from its overbroad reading of the statute. As we have held, Section 6636 does not preclude the admission of all evidence of noncompliance with smoke detector regulations. Rather, it bars only evidence that the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of Subchapter II. The County Code does not hinder the objectives of Section 6636, because its regulatory commands do not derive from, nor are they part of, Subchapter II. Persuasive evidence that Section 6636 is not inconsistent with the County ordinances by implication is that Section 6633(b) explicitly defers to the stricter regulation in the event of a conflict between installation requirements. The conflicts clause of the counterpart County Code provision similarly states that [i]n a conflict between this Section and any other applicable State or County statute, ordinance or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail. [28] Therefore, Section 6636 and the counterpart provision of the New Castle County Code are consistent and there remains no express or implied preemption-justifying conflict as between these two regulatory provisions.