Opinion ID: 1268063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Selective Enforcement of the Laws

Text: Finally, Fry Roofing Company claims that it was denied equal protection of law by reason of selective and discriminatory enforcement of the state air pollution laws against it. In particular, appellant contends that the health department intentionally failed to give notice of inspections of appellant's plant, thereby enforcing the law in a discriminatory manner. The only evidence supporting the appellant's claim is that prior to the spring of 1975, the company was not notified of readings made from outside its premises. The record supports the conclusion that efforts of conciliation between the department of health and Fry Roofing Company had broken down by the time the cease and desist order was issued in October 1969. Moreover, Fry Roofing Company refused to allow inspectors from the department of health to enter its premises after the issuance of the cease and desist order. We are not convinced that Fry Roofing Company was the only company not receiving notification of inspections prior to the spring of 1975. See, e.g., Air Pollution Variance Board v. Western Alfalfa Corp., Colo., 553 P.2d 811 (Sup.Ct. No. C-862, announced August 23, 1976). Following the second Court of Appeals' decision in Western Alfalfa Corp. v. Air Pollution Variance Board, 35 Colo.App. 207, 534 P. 2d 796 (1975), the department of health instituted a new notification procedure, and thereafter, most, if not all of the inspections at the Lloyd Fry Roofing Company included notice of the inspector's presence and observations. Appellant has not, in our opinion, presented sufficient proof that it was subject to invidious discrimination through unequal enforcement of the laws. In Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962), the Supreme Court of the United States said: [T]he conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Officials of the department of health presumably performed their tasks in a regular manner, and the burden of proof rests upon the appellant to rebut the presumption. See generally, Tollett v. Laman, 497 F.2d 1231 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973); People v. Gray, 254 Cal.App.2d 256, 63 Cal.Rptr. 211 (1967). Appellant in this case has failed to make a colorable showing of systematic discrimination, United States v. Robinson, 311 F.Supp. 1063 (W.D.Mo.1969), or unjust and illegal discrimination between persons in similar circumstances, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). The district court properly refused an evidentiary hearing on the issue. United States v. Berrigan, supra .