Court Opinion

ID: 9674155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:24:04.657891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.877904
License: Public Domain

STORCKMAN, Judge
(dissent from additional opinion).
Feeling that the motion for rehearing should be granted, I must respectfully dissent from the additional majority opinion for reasons which I will briefly state.
One of the bases of fundamental disagreement is demonstrated by the statement in the third paragraph of the additional opinion to the effect that if the City of St. Louis adopted, a charter with county powers it “ * * * of necessity would be called upon to take, over the functioning of the police department, at least to the extent of providing for the exercise of the duties imposed upon sheriffs of the 114 de jure counties of the State.”
This interpretation imposes on the general assembly a limitation not intended by the constitution. .It in effect says that the § 18 series prohibits the legislature from classifying local police or peace officers as "state officers.”
The statement fails to recognize that police officers of the City of St. Louis are state officers and that the only limitations in these county charter sections are with respect to county officers, not state officers. In Section 84.330 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., it is clearly provided that: “The members of the police force of the cities covered by sections 84.010 to 84.340, organized and appointed by the police commissioners of said cities, are hereby declared to be officers of the said cities, under the charter and ordinances thereof, and also to be officers of the state of Missouri, * * *. ” (Italics within quotations have been supplied unless otherwise noted.)
The City of St. Louis is prohibited from having a police force other than these state officers. Section 84.210(2). There are similar statutes pertaining to Kansas City. See .§ 84.710(1) and § 84.770.
This court, pursuant to the statutes cited, has held the members of the police force of St. Louis and Kansas City to be officers of the state as well as officers of their respective cities. American Fire Alarm Co. v. Board of Police Commissioners, 285 Mo. 581, 227 S.W. 114, 116 [1],
The sheriff of the City of St. Louis is deprived of his traditional powers as a conservator of the peace by a statute which provides that the police board is vested with the power “to assume the control and command of all conservators of the peace of the county or city * * § 84.-200.
This classification and control of the police as state officers would not be affected or impaired by a complete home rule charter because the constitution does not authorize a charter county or charter city to perform the functions of or exercise jurisdiction over state officers.
Section 18(b) requires counties adopting charters to provide “for the exercise of all powers and duties of counties and county officers prescribed by the constitution and laws of the state.” This is not a grant of power but a safeguard designed to insure that charter counties and their officers shall not escape the performance of the duties enjoined upon them by state laws. It is not designed to prohibit the legislature from withdrawing from charter county officers the performance of functions and vesting them in state officers as it has done in the case of the City of St. Louis.
The legislative limitation contained in § 18(e) has the effect of permitting charter counties to determine with a few exceptions “the number, kinds, manner of selection, terms of office and salaries of the county officers.” See also § 18(b). A constitutional provision of similar effect pertaining to charter cities is § 22, Article VI.
*483None of these sections, 18(a) through 18(1), undertakes to control “state officers” even though operating at a county level, nor to determine what state or governmental functions shall be assigned or delegated for performance by county officers. The general assembly remains free to impose or withhold from county officers the performance of state functions as it sees fit.
The general assembly could give charter counties the same treatment it has given the City of St. Louis and Kansas City. It could enact valid statutes providing that in counties having more than 85,000 inhabitants the police or other peace officers shall be state officers and that such counties shall not have the power or authority to maintain any other police force. This would not be contrary to §§ 18(a) to 18(1). Thus the police department of St. Louis County, a charter county, could be transformed by law into a state agency.
.In disclaiming a purpose to interfere with the present setup of the police department, the relators were not being gracious but realistic. The City of St. Louis, as a city or as a county, would have no right or authority to do so as long as §§ 84.200, 84.210 and 84.330 of the statutes remain in force.
In the second paragraph of the additional opinion reference is made to “ * * * the ultimate ascertainment of any intent on the part of the framers of the Constitution to make art. 6, Sections 18(a) to 18(1), V.A.M.S., applicable to the City of St. Louis * * *. ” Aside from the rule for constitutional construction indicated, the statement demonstrates that the approach and emphasis has been on the general provisions for charter counties rather than the specific sections relating to the City of St. Louis.
There can be no doubt that §§ 18(a) to 18(1) do not apply to the City of St. Louis in their entirety. However, to say that these provisions can have no effect beyond the confines of §§ 18(a) to 18(1) is to contradict the express language of 18(a) which states that a county charter may be adopted and amended “as provided in this wrticle.” This language extends the application of the sections and should be controlling. Sections 18(a) to 18(1) and §§ 31-33 are all in Article VI of the constitution.
The right of the City of St. Louis to include in its charter regulations with respect to “the number, kinds, manner of selection, terms of office and salaries of the county officers,” should be determined primarily from a consideration of the language of §§ 31-33. The convention records disclose no intent or purpose to restrict the application of these particular sections.
The general interest and far-reaching importance of the holdings of the majority opinion impels me to record this dissenting view in spite of my reluctance to belabor the issues.