MONT ST UNIVERSITY v RANSIER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12919 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF T E STATE O MONTANA H F 1975 MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY , Respondent and P l a i n t i f f , -vs - D N L L. RANSIER, O AD Defendant and Appellant, D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W, Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel of Record : For Appellant : McKinley T, Anderson, Jr. argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Barry L. H j o r t argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: May 9 , 1975 Jtl 9 1 Decided : .$/ & Filed : 3 ?- !9/5 k Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e d i s m i s s a l of a n " a p p e a l " b r o u g h t by Donald L. R a n s i e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County. H e t h e r e c h a l l e n g e d a n a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n of t h e T r a f f i c Appeals Committee of Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , which a s s e s s e d f o u r d o l l a r s i n f i n e s f o r p a r k i n g v i o l a t i o n s on t h e Bozeman campus. Here, a s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , most of t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s have been s t i p u l a t e d t o by t h e p a r t i e s . From t h o s e s t i p u l a t i o n s i t a p p e a r s t h a t R a n s i e r was a s t u d e n t a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y i n t h e f a l l of 1973. On November 8 , he r e c e i v e d two t i c k e t s , o n e f o r p a r k i n g i n a res t r i c t e d a r e a and one f o r f a i l i n g t o r e g i s t e r h i s v e h i c l e . The t i c k e t s , a t t a c h e d t o h i s w i n d s h i e l d w i p e r , c o n t a i n e d a warning t h a t t h e f i n e s would be doubled u n l e s s p a i d by November 1 5 , 1973. R a n s i e r a p p e a l e d t o t h e T r a f f i c Appeals Committee, which u p h e l d t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e t i c k e t s . He t h e n proceeded i n t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t where, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e motion, t h e U n i v e r s i t y ' s motion f o r d i s m i s s a l was g r a n t e d . I n addition t o t h e foregoing s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s , Ransier a l l e g e s t h a t a wheel l o c k was p l a c e d on h i s v e h i c l e and t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e T r a f f i c Appeals Committee was conducted i n c l o s e d s e s s i o n , excluding t h e general public. Counsel f o r t h e U n i v e r s i t y refused t o s t i p u l a t e t o these alleged f a c t s , but Ransier t e s t i f i e d i n s u p p o r t of them a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g . N cono t r a d i c t i n g e v i d e n c e o r t e s t i m o n y was i n t r o d u c e d by t h e U n i v e r s i t y . I n bringing h i s appeal t o t h i s Court, Ransier r a i s e s three issues: 1. Did t h e U n i v e r s i t y exceed i t s s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y i n i s s u i n g a t i c k e t f o r f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r R a n s i e r ' s v e h i c l e and i n i n c r e a s i n g t h e p e n a l t y i f t h e f i n e was n o t p a i d w i t h i n s e v e n days? 2. Is t h e s t a t u t o r y g r a n t of a u t h o r i t y t o promulgate and e n f o r c e v e h i c l e r e g i s t r a t i o n and p a r k i n g r e g u l a t i o n s a n u n l a w f u l d e l e g a t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ? 3. Is t h e U n i v e r s i t y ' s p r o c e d u r e f o r p r o c e s s i n g t i c k e t s v i o l a t i v e of t h e due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e United S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s ? The s t a t u t e s i n v o l v e d a r e : S e c t i o n 75-8503.2, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : "The r e g e n t s of t h e Montana u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m , a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o make r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a t e a c h u n i t of t h e u n i v e r s i t y system concerni n g t h e p a r k i n g and o p e r a t i o n s of motor v e h i c l e s upon t h e g r o u n d s , s t r e e t s , d r i v e s and a l l e y s of each u n i t . " S e c t i o n 75-8503.3, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s i n p e r - tinent part: "The r e g e n t s may a u t h o r i z e t h e p r e s i d e n t of each u n i t t o : '!(a) A s s e s s f e e s n o t t o exceed t e n d o l l a r s ( $ 1 0 ) p e r q u a r t e r f o r p a r k i n g on campus. " ( b ) A s s e s s f i n e s f o r v i o l a t i o n s of motor v e h i c l e o r p a r k i n g r e g u l a t i o n s of e a c h u n i t i n an amount n o t t o exceed one d o l l a r ( $ 1 ) per offense * * * " ( e ) E s t a b l i s h a system of a p p e a l s a t e a c h u n i t concerning parking v i o l a t i o n s . The r e g i s t r a t i o n and p a r k i n g r e g u l a t i o n s R a n s i e r a l l e g e d l y v i o l a t e d were promulgated by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f Montana S t a t e Univ e r s i t y under t h e e x p r e s s a u t h o r i z a t i o n of t h e board of r e g e n t s . They r e q u i r e r e g i s t r a t i o n of a l l s t u d e n t s ' v e h i c l e s parked on campus, a s w e l l as d e s i g n a t i n g c e r t a i n l o t s f o r u s e of r e s t r i c t e d c l a s s e s of s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , and u n i v e r s i t y employees. Violators t o be f i n e d one d o l l a r p e r o f f e n s e , w i t h l a t e payment of f i n e s cons t i t u t i n g a separate offense. The T r a f f i c Appeals Committee, com- posed of f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s a p p o i n t e d by t h e u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t , is empowered to review the validity of tickets issued for violation of these regulations. Review of the record discloses no exercise of authority in excess of that provided by the quoted statutes. When a stat- ute grants power in general terms, it includes, by implication, a grant of all powers incidental and necessary to make the general grant effective. Panchot v. Leet, 50 Mont. 314, 146 P. 927; 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 4th Ed., § 55.04. Requiring registration of vehicles parked on campus and limiting the areas in which they may be parked is incident to the general regulation of parking on campus and assessment of fees therefor--powers expressly granted by sections 75-8503.2 and 75-8503.3, R.C.M. 1947. Similarly, provision that the late payment of a fine constitutes a separate offense is permissible as within powers incident to the general grant of regulatory authority. Accordingly, the one dollar fine assessed therefor is within the monetary limitation of section 75-8503.3(b), R.C.M. 1947. Having found the regulations which Ransier allegedly violated are within the legislative authorization, we next consider the issue of unauthorized delegation of power. Both the 1889 and 1972 Montana Constitutions require that the powers of one branch of government can not be exercised by another branch. Article IV, Section 1, 1889 Montana Constitution; Article 111, Section 1, 1972 Montana Constitution. Any purported delegation by the legislature of powers inappropriate to the recipient branch of government would be clearly unconstitutional. In Bacus v. Lake County, 138 Mont. 69, 78, 354 P.2d 1056, we held : "'Prescribing of penalties is a legislative function, and a commission may not be empowered to impose penalties for violations of duties which it creates under a statute permitting it to make rules. However, the legislature may validly provide a criminal or penal sanction for the violation of the rules and regulations which it may empower administrative authorities to enact.' 42 Am. Jur., Public Administrative Law, 5 50, p. 355, and authorities cited therein.'' There this Court approved the exercise of a quasi-judicial function of county or district boards of health, as well as the rule making powers authorized by the legislature. That ruling was subsequently recognized as controlling in Pattie v. Oil Conservation Commission, 145 Mont. 531, 402 P.2d 596. & Gas We find it to be controlling here as well. The application of that rule to the instant case is apparent. The legislature empowered the board of regents to promulgate regulations controlling vehicles on campus, and provided a penalty for violations of those regulations. there was no unlawful delegation of power. In so doing, Another case, in point and reaching the same result, is Cohen v. Mississippi State Univ. of Agr. & A. Science, 256 F.Supp. 954, (N.D. Miss. 1966). There, under similar statutory and constitutional provisions, the promulgation and enforcement of registration and parking regulations by a university was upheld over a challenge that it violated separation of powers requirements. The due process argument raised by Ransier, alleging that his constitutional right to a public hearing before the Traffic Appeals Committee was denied, is best considered in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision: , 95 S.Ct. therein. Goss v. Lopez, U.S. I 42 L ed 2d 725, 739, 740, (1975), and cases cited Although the court in Goss was dealing with disciplinary proceedings in public high schools, the analysis is pertinent here. The state's authority to regulate conduct in its schools was recognized as broad, but nonetheless limited by certain constitutional safeguards. The limitation applied by the court in Goss was the requirement of due process in the suspension of a student for ten days as a disciplinary measure. We find the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 11, Section 17, 1972 Montana Constitution, are applicable to the instant facts. However, our inquiry cannot end there. The fundamental requirements of due process have long been recognized as "notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover B. 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L ed 865. & T. Co., That standard was GOSS, applied in - where the Court held: " * * * due process requires * * * that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him, and if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story." Recognizing that the nature of the due process required depended in some degree on the facts surrounding the charge and the interests involved, the Court went on to say: "We stop short of construing the Due Process Clause to require, countrywide, that hearings in connection with short suspensions must afford the student the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge or to call his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident. * * * To impose in each such case even truncated trial type procedures might well overwhelm administrative facilities in many places and, by diverting resources, cost more than it would save in educational effectiveness." Here, examination of the constitutional requirements involved and the guidelines apparent in Goss prompts the conclusion that due process requirements have been satisfied by the notice and hearing afforded to Ransier. In so finding, we need not consider the factual dispute involving presence or absence of the public at the hearing. On the uncontroverted facts, the con- stitutional due process requirements have been satisfied. The full panoply of a trial type procedure is not constitutionally required in a case such as this--traffic fines of only four dollars. A f r l r r r ~ i r i y tna Jiscrlcl; soure's i t i s m i s s a i we need i ~ o t reach tae ~ o n s t i t u t i o n a lc o n s i d e r a t i o n s r a i s e d by t h e Uizivers i t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e b o a r d of r e g e n t s . W e recognize t h e board of r e g e n t s a t t a i n e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s under t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , b u t d e f i n i t i o n o f t h a t s t a t u s is u n n e c e s s a r y i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l . A s t h i s Court has o f t e n s t a t e d , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s w i l l not be reached i f t h e c a s e may be d e t e r m i n e d on n o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s . Douglas v . District C o u r t , 1 6 1 Mont. 525, 507 P.2d 1 0 5 5 ; S t e n b e r g v. S t e n b e r g , l o 1 Mont. 1 6 4 , 505 P.2d 1 1 0 ; N a t i o n a l S u r e t y Corp. v . K r u s e , 1 2 1 240nt. 202, 192 P . 2 d 317. Affirmed. Justice W e concur; ,' -' . , . 4 ..#-I -------------A---------------- Chief J u s t i c e A - .* , .-.-f;--' A .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.