Court Opinion

ID: 9846896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:50:15.137363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:56.813286
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. After carefully considering the main opinion and the legal problems raised by this appeal, I am constrained to-adhere to the position taken in the prior' opinion of the court.1 I do not agree that the general grant of police power to the cities by Sec. 10-8-84, U.C.A.1953, was in-' tended by the legislature to authorize adoption of the ordinance we are here concerned with. It would seem that had the legislature intended such broad powers it would not have made specific grants of power to cities to deal with certain aspects of prostitution as provided for by Sec. 10-8-41 and 10-8-51, U.C.A.1953. The latter statutes would be unnecessary and superfluous.
I do not believe the legislature, by use of the term “improve the morals” as contained, in Sec. 10-8-84, referred to above, and emphasized in the main opinion, intended that cities be empowered to reduce to the grade of misdemeanor offenses which are denounced as felonies by state statute. Nor do I believe that handling pandering and offenses related thereto on the same basis as traffic violations would in the long-run accomplish the purpose of deterring the acts mentioned in the ordinance.

. Salt Lake City v. Allred, 19 Utah 2d 254, 430 P.2d 371 (1967).