Smith v. City of St. Louis
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 693
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- City enacted Ordinance 66868 authorizing automated red light cameras to detect traffic-signal violations at dangerous intersections.
- Notice of Violation issued to Smith and Morgan directed payment of $100 and stated payment admitted liability; no court date provided in the Violation Notice.
- Final Notices later directed court appearances but included dated court hearings pre-dating the alleged violations, creating due process concerns for contesting tickets.
- Respondents filed a seven-count Third Amended Petition alleging due process, self-incrimination, Confrontation Clause, unjust enrichment, and state-law conflicts; City and Respondents cross-moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for City on self-incrimination and Confrontation Clause; granted Respondents summary judgment on state-law conflict; found procedural due process issues and lack of municipal authority; case narrowed to appellate review.
- Court ultimately held the Ordinance void as applied for failing to comply with Missouri Supreme Court traffic notice rules; reversed on Morgan’s due process and City authority issues; affirmed as to Smith’s refund claim and other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process failure due to notice | Smith | City | Ordinance invalid as applied; notice violated Rule 37.33/38.07; no meaningful court date provided. |
| Conflict with state law (enforcement or penalties) | Respondents | City Authority to enact under police power/charter city. | Count VII vacated; City authority upheld on police power and charter-city authority; Ordinance affirmed in that respect. |
| Authority of City to enact Ordinance absent enabling legislation | Respondents | City lacked authority without enabling statute. | Reversed trial court; City has authority as a constitutional charter city to enact the Ordinance. |
| Refund viability for Smith under voluntary payment doctrine | Smith | Voluntary payment bars restitution; no duress shown. | Smith not entitled to refund; voluntary payment doctrine applied; duress not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (rules governing court procedures bind litigants and courts)
- Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1986) (home rule powers; city authority to act under constitution and statutes)
- City of St. Louis v. Flynn, 386 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1965) (notice and pleading standards in municipal actions)
- Nottebrok (City of Creve Coeur v. Nottebrok), 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (automated traffic enforcement and police power relation to health/safety)
- State ex rel. Kansas City v. Meyers, 513 S.W.2d 414 (Mo. banc 1974) (municipal notices and civil proceedings standards)
- Clifford Hindman Real Estate, Inc. v. City of Jennings, 288 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (police power delegation to municipalities)