Sarah Tupper, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.
468 S.W.3d 360
Mo.2015Background
- In 2005 St. Louis enacted ordinance 66868 authorizing automated red light camera enforcement; notices with a $100 fine were sent to vehicle owners and included a rebuttable presumption that the owner was the driver.
- ATS reviewed camera video, identified owners via license records, and the police issued notices to owners without attempting to identify the actual driver.
- Tupper and Thurmond each received notices (multiple), were subject to municipal prosecutions (one acquittal after renewed motion), and then filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking invalidation of the ordinance and an injunction.
- The city dismissed the pending prosecutions before the circuit court trial; nevertheless the circuit court found plaintiffs lacked an adequate remedy at law, declared the ordinance invalid (relying on Smith and related cases), and enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance.
- The circuit court denied attorney’s fees and denied relief as to non-city defendants; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the injunction and invalidation based on the unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption, denied fees, and held the director of revenue lacked appellate standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequate remedy / justiciability | Plaintiffs: municipal prosecutions no longer provide adequate relief (municipal division lacks jurisdiction over void ordinance and city dismissed prosecutions) | City: plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in municipal proceedings; case is moot | Held: plaintiffs lacked an adequate remedy after city dismissed prosecutions; pre-enforcement challenge was ripe under public-interest/voluntary-cessation principles and predominately legal questions justified declaratory relief |
| Constitutionality of rebuttable presumption | Plaintiffs: ordinance creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption shifting burden of persuasion to owner (violates due process) | City: presumption only shifts burden of production (permissible) and is reasonable for enforcement | Held: ordinance creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifts burden of persuasion to defendant, relieving prosecution of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; unconstitutional under Sandstrom and invalidated |
| Attorney’s fees | Plaintiffs: city’s continued enforcement after appellate decisions justified award (intentional misconduct / special circumstances) | City: no intentional misconduct; plaintiffs could have raised defenses in municipal proceedings (American Rule applies) | Held: no abuse of discretion in denying fees; plaintiffs did not show intentional misconduct or other exception to American Rule |
| Director of revenue’s appealability / standing | N/A (plaintiffs sought relief partly implicating director) | Director: argued dismissal for lack of injury and moved to dismiss | Held: director not aggrieved by judgment (court denied relief as to him) and lacks statutory right to appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. City of St. Louis, 409 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. App. 2013) (court of appeals decision finding issues with St. Louis red light notice procedures)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (mandatory presumptions that shift burden of persuasion violate due process)
- City of St. Peters v. Roeder, 466 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. banc 2015) (red light camera evidence and identity-of-driver issues)
- City of Kansas City v. Hertz Corp., 499 S.W.2d 449 (Mo. 1973) (treatment of owner-based parking presumptions and factors relevant to due process)
- Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. 2013) (municipal-proceeding jurisdiction and related challenges)