Court Opinion

ID: 9446300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:51:49.876462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:36.528431
License: Public Domain

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I find myself in disagreement with my Associates in this case. As stated in the majority opinion, the town of Farm-ington, New Mexico, has an occupation tax ordinance on its statute books. It is a general ordinance apparently applying to all forms of endeavor or pursuits for profit, with certain exceptions not material herein. It imposes an occupation tax beginning at $5 per annum. It applies equally to all classes of occupations. It provides for applications for licenses, issuance of licenses, and makes it an offense to engage in business without having a license.
New Mexico has a statute (N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp. § 14-17-6) which is necessary to consider. It relates to the powers and duties of marshals and other peace officers and so far as material herein provides that such officers “shall apprehend any person in the act of committing any offense against the laws of the state or ordinances of the city, town or village, and forthwith bring such persons before the competent authority for examination and trial; * * * ”.
As stated in the majority opinion, Miller was an itinerant vendor, taking orders for tailored clothing to be fitted and shipped in interstate commerce. He did not have a license to engage in business in Farmington. Some attention is given in the majority opinion to the fact that there had been previous arrests and there are suggestions of bad faith in making these arrests which might partake of malicious prosecution. I lay these aside because, as I read the majority opinion, it is not based on bad faith or acts that smack of malicious prosecution. I think the statement is warranted that the record is devoid of anything which would in any way tend to establish bad faith on the part of the officer making the arrest, say what you may about the conduct of the local merchant.
Here are the essential facts. At the instigation of Shervee, a local merchant, Officer Stinnett went to a place where Miller was engaged in measuring a purchaser of clothing and, after witnessing the measuring, arrested Miller without a warrant and took him to jail, where he made bond and was released. Both Stinnett and Shervee knew that Miller claimed immunity from the ordinance.
The majority opinion, as I read it, is predicated upon the assumption that the Farmington occupation tax ordinance is unconstitutional. I am not so sure in my own mind that this is so. Reliance for this position is placed upon the so-called drummer ordinance cases, beginning with the early case of Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489, 7 S.Ct. 592, 30 L.Ed. 694, and adhered to by a divided court in the later cases of Nippert v. City of Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 66 S.Ct. 586, 90 L.Ed. 760, and Memphis Steam Laundry Cleaner v. Stone, 342 U.S. 389, 72 S.Ct. 424, 96 L.Ed. 436. The Farmington ordinance in many respects is vastly different from the ordinary drummer ordi*916nances considered by the Supreme Court in these cases. But since in my view the validity of the ordinance is immaterial to the fundamental issue, the question need not be developed.
To me the single question is, can an officer who makes an arrest for the violation of an ordinance committed in his presence, which by law he is required to make,1 be subjected to liability if thereafter it should be judicially determined that the ordinance was void and, therefore, in fact no offense had been committed. To so hold would in my opinion be against public policy and would cause a complete break-down in law enforcement. To so hold would mean that if an officer were asked to make an arrest without a warrant for a violation of an ordinance, committed in his presence, when the statute required him to do so, he would be warranted in refusing. He might well say, “I do not know whether this ordinance is valid. Go institute a declaratory judgment action and have its validity determined and then I will act.”
By the great weight of authority, in fact almost by unanimous authority, it is held that an arrest made by an officer for acts committed in his presence in violation of ordinances valid upon their face are privileged and do not subject him to liability if thereafter the ordinance is held void. The reason for this is well stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Bricker v. Sims, 195 Tenn. 361, 259 S.W.2d 661, 664, where the Supreme Court said, “The general public welfare, and more especially the peace and good order of society, will not admit of ministerial officers being the judge of the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances. Their failure and refusal to enforce the law as written, in the absence of any proper adjudication of unconstitutionality, would be intolerable.” Of all the cases relied upon by the majority for a contrary holding, only Smith v. Costello, 77 Idaho 205, 290 P.2d 742, involves the liability of a peace officer acting under an invalid statute and that case did not involve the liability of an officer for making an arrest under such a statute without a warrant.
In City of Clovis v. Archie, 60 N.M. 239, 290 P.2d 1075, the New Mexico Supreme Court construed the statute requiring an officer to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence. In that case Archie was arrested without a warrant and on trial was convicted. On appeal, it was contended that the arrest was illegal because made without a warrant. The Supreme Court, referring to the statute, held that thereunder an arrest without a warrant was lawful. The case of Vickrey v. Dunivan, 59 N.M. 90, 279 P.2d 853, 855, by the New Mexico Court, upon which reliance is placed by the majority, is clearly distinguishable upon the facts. The arrest there was made for the violation of a city ordinance which did not exist and for an offense which was committed, if at all, outside the city limits. Under these facts, the officer was held liable for false arrest because he did not act even under color of ostensible authority and was wholly without jurisdiction to act. The Court, however, recognized the general rule of non-liability of officers acting under color of authority. In the opinion it is stated, “No rule is more firmly established than that judicial officers are not liable for the erroneous exercise of judicial powers vested in them; * * *»
I have been able to find only one case directly in point. In Bricker v. Sims, 195 Tenn. 361, 259 S.W.2d 661, 664, the plaintiff averred that he had been unlawfully arrested without a warrant, for the violation of an ordinance which was unconstitutional and void, and sued the arresting officers for false arrest. The officers’ demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the case was dismissed. On appeal, the decision was affirmed. The Tennessee Court laid down the principles which to me are basic in such clear language that I quote there*917•from at some length. The Court said “ ‘An unconstitutional act is not void but voidable only and ministerial officers are therefore authorized to treat every act of the Legislature as prima-facie valid and they are not liable for any acts committed under an unconstitutional statute on account of its unconstitutionality .’ ” And “Ministerial officers are not as a general rule permitted to question the validity of a statute or city ordinance.” And “ ‘Every act of the Legislature is presumptively constitutional until judicially declared otherwise, and the oath of office “to obey the Constitution,” means to obey the Constitution, not as the officer decides, but as judicially determined.’ ” Because I agree wholeheartedly with the pronouncement of the Tennessee Court that “The general public welfare, and more especially the peace and good order of society, will not admit of ministerial officers being the judge of the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances.” and that “Their failure and refusal to enforce the law as written, in the absence of any proper adjudication of unconstitutionality, would be intolerable,”, I am forced to respectfully dissent.

. Under the ordinance, Stinnett was required to make the arrest because the violation of the license ordinance was committed in bis presence.