Court Opinion

ID: 9756322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:23:16.412415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:37.825420
License: Public Domain

*393Shangraw, C.J.,
dissenting. In determining whether the commissioner of public safety properly administered 31 V.S.A. § 620 relating to police protection at the race track, it is necessary to consider section 601 of Chapter 13, Title 31 entitled “Construction and purpose” which reads as follows:
“This chapter is based upon the taxing power and the police power of the state and provides for the establishment, licensing, regulation and control of the pari-mutuel system of wagering on horse races, and is for the protection of the public welfare and good order of the people of the state, the support and encouragement of agricultural fairs and the improvement of the breed of horses in Vermont.”
Among other things, the legislature was wisely concerned with the “protection of the public welfare and good order of the people of the state” as set forth in the foregoing section. I cannot conceive that the legislature, in its wisdom, intended that the police protection to be provided, incident to the operation and maintenance of the race track, was to be left ' entirely, and in the discretion of the licensee, to its personnel hired for this purpose. Certainly it is advantageous to the citizens of Vermont to have members of the department of public safety at the track and not to leave the police protection entirely to the employees of a private corporation.
By the enactment of section 620, swpra, the legislature no doubt had in mind the security of the public against incidents arising as a result of the pari-mutuel operation which the licensee was not prepared to cope with. Under the provisions of section 620, supra, it not only intended to protect the owners of the race track but also all other persons in attendance and to generally safeguard the interests of all Vermonters by guarding against a violation of the laws of Vermont.
The order of the Commissioner of Public Safety dated May 3, 1963, required that the licensee be responsible for the policing of vehicle traffic entering and departing from Route 7, and also directed the presence of officers at the junction of Routes 346 and 7. It also provided for traffic protection at the southern and northern Boston and Maine Railroad train crossings as well as at any school crossing adjacent to the race track on days of racing.
*394The order continued by stating:
“The Taconic Racing and Breeding Association, Inc. shall provide sufficient security officers within the park to cope with any situation that may arise.
The Vermont State Police will have a detail of from one to two uniformed officers stationed in the State Police office at the race track. This State Police unit will have radio contact with other units of the State Police. The State Police will have a detail of detectives from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation on duty at the race track during all racing periods.”
It is my view that the statutory provisions of section 620, supra, are a part of the bargain between' the State of Vermont and the licensee under which the latter was permitted to operate. It can hardly be assumed that the legislature was only concerned with traffic supervision by its inclusion in section 620, supra, of the provisions that the “. . . licensee shall maintain adequate police protection as may be determined by the commissioner of public safety of the State ' of Vermont, . . . .” His determination plainly encompassed the state police personnel assigned.
The Commissioner of Public Safety was afforded wide discretion in the supervision and requirement of facilities which appeared to him conducive to the protection of the public welfare. This discretion does not appear to have been abused. It must be acknowledged that trained investigators and enforcement officers were most desirable and no doubt necessary to afford protection to property and persons in attendance at the race track.
It is my judgment that the legislature by the enactment of section 620, supra, may well have had in mind the facilities at the disposal of the State Police for prompt communication with outside agencies in cases of emergency ana that “police protection” as contained in the foregoing section was not limited to traffic control. I cannot subscribe to the conclusion arrived at by the Chancellor “That the assignment of the Vermont State Police at said racetrack is not included in the phrase ‘adequate police protection’, as used in the statute.” 31 V.S.A. § 620.
*395No question apparently has been raised as to the reasonableness of the charges made against the licensee, paid by it under protest, and for which it now seeks to recover in this action.
I would reverse and enter- judgment in favor of the defendant.