Opinion ID: 1690295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the city's ordinance conflicts with a state statute, thereby making the ordinance void.

Text: ¶ 11. The main point of Collins' argument on appeal is that the municipal ordinance under which she was convicted is void because it, in effect, nullifies Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-53(e), by making conduct lawful under the statute illegal under the ordinance. At the end of Prohibition, the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, which had outlawed intoxicating liquors in the United States. The Twenty-First Amendment basically restored rights to states to regulate the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 57 S.Ct. 77, 81 L.Ed. 38 (1936), reh. denied, 299 U.S. 623, 57 S.Ct. 229, 81 L.Ed. 458. ¶ 12. The Mississippi Legislature enacted laws legalizing the manufacture, sale, and consumption within this state of light wines and beer of an alcoholic content of not more than four percentum by weight, specifically called the Sale of Light Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages Act. Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-1, et seq. The Act permitted but regulated the sale of beer in Mississippi. Hays v. State, 219 Miss. 808, 69 So.2d 845 (1954). The citizens of Hazlehurst had previously voted, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-9, for the City to allow on-premises sale and consumption of beer. ¶ 13. The legislature noted certain interests of local governments in regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages of this nature and granted specific powers to them, including municipalities. Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-65 provides, [m]unicipalities may enforce such proper rules and regulations for fixing zones and territories, prescribing hours of opening and of closing, and for such other measures as will promote public health, morals, and safety, as they may by ordinance provide. ... (emphasis added). The City, using the previously mentioned statute above as a guide, adopted an ordinance making it unlawful to allow any person under the age of twenty-one years of age inside a premises licensed to sell beer, where beer is permitted to be consumed. ¶ 14. Collins obtained an on-premises retail beer permit allowing her to sell cans and bottles of beer to customers at her Club. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-53(e) [1] , Collins was allowed to permit minors to enter her Club only if they were accompanied by parents or guardians, or under proper supervision. The City enacted an ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to allow anyone under twenty-one years of age in an establishment that had an on-premises retail beer permit, regardless of accompaniment by parents, guardians, or other proper supervision. Collins asserts that conduct lawful under state law was made unlawful by the City ordinance. ¶ 15. Collins correctly notes that this Court has held that a municipality could not adopt any valid ordinance, the effect of which would be nullification of the State's statutes dealing with the same misdemeanor, such as the possession of beer made legal for personal consumption. City of Amory v. Yielding, 203 Miss. 265, 34 So.2d 726, 728 (1948). It is well established that in any conflict between an ordinance and a statute, the latter must prevail. Watkins v. Navarrette, 227 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss. 1969). ¶ 16. Collins claims that the state statute allowed on-premises retail beer permit holders to allow persons under twenty-one years of age to enter her Club only if accompanied by parents, guardians, or under proper supervision. Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-53(e). Collins argues that the City ordinance conflicted with this statute and is therefore void. The ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for any permit holder to allow persons under twenty-one years of age to enter on-premises retailers even if such persons are accompanied by parents, guardians, or under proper supervision. [2] Because this is in conflict with Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-53(e), Collins asserts the ordinance is void. ¶ 17. The City responds by stating the ordinance was permissible under Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-65, under the theory that the ordinance would promote public health, morals, and safety of persons under twenty-one years of age. This Court has spoken before about the special relationship of minors and alcohol. The Court stated: Society has a greater interest in protecting the welfare of minors than other groups listed in § 67-3-53(b), § 67-1-81 and § 67-1-83. Minors comprise a larger segment of society than do the others listed. The future of society is dependent upon the welfare and protection of its youth. Minority is easily determined by the dispenser of intoxicants, e.g. an I.D. can be required. Cuevas v. Royal D'Iberville Hotel, 498 So.2d 346, 348 (Miss. 1986). ¶ 18. The City adopted an ordinance for the welfare and protection of its youth. The City states that open consumption of beer in the presence of those under twenty-one years of age on a licensed premises is not promoting the public health, morals and safety of those individuals. In further support of their position the City states the youth today are confronted with drugs, crime, violence and innumerable unsavory influences. Therefore, the City adopted the ordinance as authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-65 to remove the influence of open consumption of beer in the presence of minors on licensed premises. ¶ 19. This Court finds the City correctly adopted its ordinance under the authority of Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-65. The police power confers upon the states and local governmental units broad regulatory authority over public health, welfare, and morals. Davidson v. City of Clinton, Mississippi, 826 F.2d 1430, 1433 (5th Cir.1987). ¶ 20. The most recent case in which the Court dealt with municipal ordinances was Maynard v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi, 691 So.2d 385 (Miss. 1997). Where the legislature had not clearly expressed an intent, the Court stated, the public policy considerations in favor of granting a municipality the right to prevent accidents and deaths related to drunken driving, alcohol related altercations, and similar societal ills are so strongly in favor of Tupelo that this Court will allow the ordinance to stand. Id. at 388. The Court concluded that the Legislature had not preempted the entire area of alcohol regulation with its extensive regulation by the statutes. Id. The Court found that the Legislature understood the importance of granting local governments the power to regulate the impact of alcoholic beverages within their communities. Id. ¶ 21. As mentioned earlier in Cuevas, this Court gives special consideration to minors. There the Court stated [t]he future of society is dependent upon the welfare and protection of its youth. Cuevas, 498 So.2d at 348. The ordinance that this Court upheld in Maynard had as its objective the promotion of the public safety and welfare of Tupelo. Maynard, 691 So.2d at 388. Likewise, the City in the case sub judice enacted the ordinance in order to promote the welfare, morals, and safety of its citizenry under the age of twenty-one. It goes without saying that such an ordinance is needed to prevent persons under the age of twenty-one from entering such premises as Club O'Hara, where patrons are scanned for weapons prior to entering. ¶ 22. Because this Court has distinguished its treatment of minors, we hold that the ordinance adopted by the City was valid under Miss. Code Ann. § 67-3-65. Therefore, the decision of the lower court is affirmed.