Opinion ID: 2595087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Interpretation of K.S.A. 83-201 and 83-219

Text: In its petition for review, the State contends that the Court of Appeals' majority erroneously interpreted the weights and measures statutes, K.S.A. 83-201 and 83-219. Specifically, the State disagrees with the majority's findings regarding the legislative history and legislative intent behind the 1994 and 1996 amendments to those statutes. The interpretation of statutes is a question of law, and this court's review is unlimited. Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 270 Kan. 502, 506, 14 P.3d 1149 (2000). Again, the statute at issue, K.S.A. 83-219(a)(16) makes it unlawful for any owner of a commercial weighing or measuring device . . . to charge or attempt to charge, at the time of the sale of an item or commodity, a value which is more than the price which is advertised, posted or quoted. (Emphasis added.) A measuring device is defined to include all weights, scales, beams, measures of every kind, instruments and mechanical devices for weighing or measuring, and any appliances and accessories connected with any or all such instruments. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 83-201(k). The terms weights and measures are not defined separately, but the definition of the term weights and measures means all commercial weights or measures of every kind, instruments and devices for weighing and measuring, and any appliance and accessories associated with any or all such instruments and devices and any point-of-sale system.  (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 83-201(a). A point-of-sale system is defined as any combination of a cash register or other devices, or system, such as a scanner, capable of recovering stored information related to the price or computing the price of any individual item which is sold or offered for sale at retail. A point-of-sale system may also include or be attached or connected to a weighing or measuring device.  (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 83-201(l). These terms are used inconsistently throughout the weights and measures statutes. Given the ambiguity of the terminology and its usage, this court must look to the design and language of the statute as a whole, as well as to external aids, that may reveal the intent of the legislature. Several canons of statutory construction support the conclusion that K.S.A. 83-219(a) was intended to apply to point-of-sale systems even after the 1996 amendment. First, [i]n construing statutes and determining legislative intent, several provisions of an act or acts, in pari materia, must be construed together with a view of reconciling and bringing them into workable harmony if possible. [Citation omitted.] Petty v. City of El Dorado, 270 Kan. 847, 852, 19 P.3d 167 (2001). Effect must be given, if possible, to the entire act and every part thereof. To this end, it is the duty of the court, as far as practicable, to reconcile the different provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible. The court must give effect to the legislature's intent even though words, phrases, or clauses at some place in the statute must be omitted or inserted. [Citation omitted.] State v. Engles, 270 Kan. 530, 533, 17 P.3d 355 (2001). As the dissent noted, the majority of the Court of Appeals disregarded the unifying definition of weights and measures found in K.S.A. 83-201(a). The statute alleged to have been violated applied to owners of measuring devices. K.S.A. 83-219(a). A measuring device includes all weights . . . [and] measures. K.S.A. 83-201 (k). `Weights and measures' means all commercial weights or measures of every kind, instruments and devices for weighing and measuring, and any appliance and accessories associated with any or all such instruments and devices and any point-of-sale system.  (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 83-201(a). Point-of-sale systems include scanners. K.S.A. 83-201(l). When these provisions are read together, Oshman, by owning a scanner, owned a point-of-sale system which is a weight and measure. A weight and measure is a measuring device. The provisions of K.S.A. 83-219(a) apply to Oshman. Additionally, the reading adopted by the Court of Appeals' majority did not give meaning to all provisions of the applicable statutes. If K.S.A. 83-219(a) is construed to be inapplicable to point-of-sale systems, then all of the other references to point-of-sale systems within the weights and measures statutes become meaningless. In other words, if it is not unlawful to misrepresent or miscalculate the price of merchandise using a point-of-sale system, why would the Department of Agriculture be required to inspect and test point-of-sale systems under K.S.A. 83-206(f) and approve or reject point-of-sale systems under K.S.A. 83-206(g)? Why would the Department of Agriculture be required to adopt rules and regulations concerning technical requirements for point-of-sale systems under K.S.A. 83-207? These statutes were amended to include references to point-of-sale systems in 1994, see L. 1994, ch. 83, secs. 2, 3, and the references have remained intact since then. Additionally, it is appropriate for this court to consider the legislative history of the weights and measures statutes. Although appellate courts will not speculate as to the legislative intent of a plain and unambiguous statute, [citation omitted] where the construction of a statute on its face is uncertain, the court may examine the historical background of the enactment, the circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished, and the effect the statute may have under various suggested interpretations. [Citation omitted.] Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 220, 960 P.2d 205 (1998). The Court of Appeals did consider some legislative history but did not consider other relevant portions of the legislative history. In 1994, the legislature amended the weights and measures statutes to include point-of-sale systems by inserting references to point-of-sale systems throughout those statutes. In K.S.A. 83-201(a), the term point-of-sale system was added to the definition of the term weights and measures. Definitions of the terms point-of-sale system and scanner were added at K.S.A. 83-201(l) and (m). K.S.A. 83-206, which sets out the duties of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the administration of the weights and measures inspection program, was amended to require the secretary to inspect and test commercial point-of-sale systems used in recovering stored information related to the price of any item sold at retail and to approve or reject those point-of-sale systems. K.S.A. 83-207, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt rules and regulations for the administration and enforcement of Chapter 83 was amended to include reference to point-of-sale systems. Finally, K.S.A. 83-219, which lists unlawful acts, was amended to include four new unlawful acts, 83-219(a)(13) through (16), all related to misrepresentations and miscalculations of price. L. 1994, ch. 83, secs. 1-4. At hearings on the bill, the Director of the Division of Inspections for the Department of Agriculture offered the following testimony: The purpose of this bill is to address technology changes in the industry and to provide the agency with clear authority to inspect and regulate point of sale or electronic price scanning equipment (scanners) which are currently used in commerce. Current law addresses weighing and measuring devices but does not speak to point of sale systems such as scanners. I am sure that many of you have seen recent TV shows reflecting the economic fraud that can occur when point of sale systems are manipulated by unscrupulous individuals or where errors occur due to employee error or bar code problems. Our Weights and Measures program has been actively involved in checking scanners in Kansas and believe we are achieving compliance. This bill legalizes our activities and provides us with appropriate language in the unlawful acts section. Minutes, House Comm. on Agriculture, February 22, 1994 (H.B. 3023), attach. 1. Although the 1994 amendments might have been drafted more artfully, it is clear that the legislature intended point-of-sale systems to be inspected and regulated by the Department of Agriculture as part of its weights and measures inspection program. The problem arises with the 1996 amendment to K.S.A. 83-219(a) changing person to owner of a commercial weighing and measuring device. L. 1996, ch. 146, sec. 24. The Court of Appeals found no legislative history explaining this amendment and stated that the legislative intent to include point-of-sale systems in the definition of weights and measures after the 1996 amendments was not clear. However, the minutes of the 1996 House and Senate Agriculture Committee meetings and the testimony offered regarding the 1996 Substitute for Senate Bill 705 offer some insight. The bill contained a variety of amendments to many of the weights and measures statutes. See L. 1996, ch. 146. At hearings on the bill, Carole Jordan, Program Analyst for the Department of Agriculture, offered testimony to the House Agriculture Committee, giving a history of the weights and measures program and the results of a Legislative Post Audit report identifying problems with the program and with the accuracy of weights and measures devices in the state. The bill contained changes proposed by the Department of Agriculture in response to the audit report. Minutes, House Comm. on Agriculture, March 7, 1996 (Sub. S.B. 705), attach. 1. Ms. Jordan's testimony mentioned scanners: Scannersin supermarkets, department and a variety of other storesare a relatively new addition to the responsibilities of weights and measures officials. Assuring that prices scanned are the same as advertised is the function of price verification inspections. The inspection is not truly of the device, but rather of the accuracy of the price data regularly input into the store or chain's computer database. In turn, each scanner at a check-out counter is tied to the computer database. The state's population of scanners, estimated by the numbers of establishments, is at around 7,000 and growing rapidly. The state is still developing its inventory of these devices. . . . . . . Because of the large number of scanners . . . statistical testing provides the best and most economically feasible method of inspection to ensure accuracy.. . . [T]he state will design a random statistical test based upon the universe of scanners . . . . State inspectors will conduct statistical tests, follow up on consumer complaints and conduct investigations. Minutes, House Comm. on Agriculture, March 7, 1996 (Sub. S.B. 705), attach. 1. Remembering that the term scanner is included within the statutory definition of a point-of-sale system at K.S.A. 83-201(l), this testimony shows that the Department of Agriculture, at least, fully intended to continue inspecting and regulating point-of-sale systems after the 1996 amendments to the weights and measures statutes. Since the bill was drafted by the Department of Agriculture, no amendment contained within that bill could have been intended to eliminate point-of sale systems from the application of the weights and measures statutes. This particular legislative history shows the intention of the Department of Agriculture when it interprets the statutes it is charged with enforcing; such an interpretation is entitled to judicial deference. See GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317, 22 P.3d 600 (2001). Further, the wording of the 1996 amendment was reversed in 2001, when the legislature amended K.S.A. 83-219(a) by again making it unlawful for any person to commit any of the listed acts. L. 2001, ch. 175, sec. 5; see K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 83-219(a). However, at the hearing on the 2001 House Bill 2102 amendment to K.S.A. 83-219(a), the Department of Agriculture offered the following testimony regarding the purpose of the amendment: K.S.A. 83-219. There are 25 unlawful acts contained in this statute, 19 of which do not require using a commercial weighing or measuring device. For example, it is unlawful to `misrepresent or represent in a manner calculated or tending to mislead or deceive an actual or prospective purchaser, the price of an item offered, exposed or advertised for sale at retail.' Owning a commercial weighing or measuring device is not required for an individual or organization to misrepresent the price of an item. However, as it is currently written, it is unlawful only for an owner of a weighing or measuring device. The statute could create problems if an individual is using a commercial weighing or measuring device, but does not own it. The proposed amendment will allow the agency to take action against any entity that has committed unlawful acts, including businesses that rent or lease weighing or measuring devices. Minutes, House Comm. on Agriculture, January 31, 2001 (H.B. 2102), attach. 3. Obviously, the Department of Agriculture recognized two problems with the language of K.S.A. 83-219(a): (1) that many of the unlawful acts listed in the statute did not require use of a commercial weighing and measuring device, and (2) that the statute as written only applied to an ownernot a user or lessorof a commercial weighing and measuring device. The first problem is the very one at issue in this case. It appears the Department of Agriculture realized that the language of K.S.A. 83-219(a) was inadequate to cover pricing misrepresentations and was attempting to remedy the problem by introducing the amendment. Although courts ordinarily presume that by changing the language of a statute the legislature intended to change its effect, this presumption may be strong or weak, according to the circumstances, and may be wanting altogether in a particular case. Board of Education of U.S.D. 512 v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 231 Kan. 731, 736, 648 P.2d 1143 (1982). Furthermore, [w]hen a statute is ambiguous, amendment of the statute may indicate a legislative purpose to clarify the ambiguities in the statute rather than to change the law. 1A Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 22.01 (6th ed. 2002). The legislative history reveals that the 2001 amendment of K.S.A. 83-219(a) was intended as a clarification of an ambiguous statute rather than as a change in the law. The clear legislative intent was for point-of-sale systems to be inspected and regulated by the Department of Agriculture as part of its weights and measures inspection program. Oshman offers one last argument, i.e., that the weights and measures statutes are quasi-criminal; thus, the rule of lenity applies, citing United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 54, 127 L. Ed. 2d 611, 114 S. Ct. 1259 (1994). Oshman argues it must receive the benefit of any ambiguity. In a case involving civil penalties assessed against an oil company by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the Court of Appeals recognized that a penalty provision in a statute should be strictly construed in favor of the person being penalized. Radke Oil Co., Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment, 23 Kan. App. 2d 774, Syl. ¶ 2, 936 P.2d 286 (1997). However, even in the context of a criminal statute, the rule of lenity is subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent. State v. McGill, 271 Kan. 150, 154, 22 P.3d 597 (2001). Reading all of the weights and measures statutes together, especially the unifying definition of weights and measures which includes point-of-sale system devices, and considering the legislative history behind the 1994, 1996, and 2001 amendments to those statutes, it is clear that the legislature intended point-of-sale systems to be included in the application of K.S.A. 83-219(a). Oshman's arguments fail.