It is no surprise to me that the South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld a judge’s ruling that Sioux Falls’ administrative appeals process is unconstitutional. It doesn’t even take a lawyer to figure that out;
Dan Daily sued the city in 2008 after receiving four citations in two years for violating city code with a driveway extension up to a fire hydrant. He lost his appeal to the city but decided to pursue the matter in the courts rather than pay the $200 fine.
The high court on Thursday affirmed a trial court opinion that the city’s enforcement violated Daily’s constitutional rights to due process and equal application of the law. The justices say the city took a position that the issuance of a city code enforcement citation assumed non-compliance, and Daily incorrectly bore the burden of proving that the city incorrectly issued it.
The opinion, which is linked above, is 18 pages. Here are some finer points;
After a four-day trial, the trial court concluded that the City’s administrative appeals process, both as written and as applied, as well as the enforcement of its zoning ordinances, violated Daily’s constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection. We affirm.
(former) city attorney Shawn Tornow at his finest unconstitutional self;
The parties dispute whether the October hearing on citations 1313 and 1379 took place. At the court trial in the declaratory judgment action, Daily offered his personal calendar and detailed testimony about the hearing. He testified that after Daily questioned Hartmann regarding the citations, Tornow stopped the hearing and asked him to step out of the room. When Daily entered the room several minutes later, Tornow told him that he would receive additional citations if he did not remove the concrete extension to his driveway. Daily did not receive a decision regarding his appeals of the citations. In contrast, the City, through the testimony of Hartmann, a paralegal for the city attorney’s office, and a City director  who served on the decision panel, contended that Daily did not appear for the hearing. The City ordinarily records its administrative hearings, but no audio recording for this hearing has been found. The outside cover of the City’s official file for the citations states, “No Show, No Tape,†but it is not clear whether this note refers to the October hearing or the September hearing for which the hearing examiner was not available.
The City did not contact Daily again regarding the concrete extension to his driveway until April of 2008, when he received citations 2545 and 2546 in the mail. Citation 2545 cites the same zoning ordinances as citation 1313, and citation 2546 cites the same municipal code section as citation 1379. Daily appealed citations 2545 and 2546, alleging selective enforcement and double jeopardy. After receiving a notice scheduling a hearing on both citations, Daily retained an attorney.
A hearing on citations 2545 and 2546 took place on April 29, 2008. The City Attorney’s office hired James Robbennolt, a Sioux Falls attorney, to serve as the hearing examiner.5 Before the hearing, Robbennolt informed Daily that he bore the burden of proving that the City incorrectly issued the citations. Tornow informed Daily’s attorney that the City’s administrative appeals ordinance provides that the technical rules of evidence do not apply but that irrelevant or immaterial evidence may be excluded. During the hearing, Tornow repeatedly objected to the introduction of evidence on grounds other than relevance, and Robbennolt sustained several of his objections.
The first trial, which was delayed several months said ultimately what the SDSC said;
In May of 2008, Daily initiated this declaratory judgment action against the City. A four-day trial was held over a period of several months. After the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court ultimately concluded that the City’s administrative appeals process, both as written and as applied, as well as the enforcement of its zoning ordinances violated Daily’s constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection.
This is also an important factor in the courts decision;
The City operates under a home rule charter. The South Dakota Constitution describes “home rule†municipalities:
A chartered governmental unit may exercise any legislative power or perform any function not denied by its charter, the Constitution, or the general laws of the state. The charter may provide for any form of executive, legislative and administrative structure which shall be of superior authority to statute,
Which brings us to this;
Daily challenged the City’s administrative appeals process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article VI, section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution. Both provide that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.â€
Which brings us to why his rights were violated;
The heart of the matter is whether the City’s administrative appeals process deprived Daily of a protected property interest without due process of law. The trial court concluded that the City’s administrative appeals process violated Daily’s procedural due process rights for five reasons: (1) Daily bore the burden of proving that the City incorrectly issued the citations; (2) Daily was not afforded an opportunity to subpoena witnesses or documents or to otherwise investigate the basis of the citations; (3) the City issued Daily multiple citations for a single violation of its zoning ordinances and municipal code; (4) the hearing examiner did not apply the applicable rules of evidence in a fair and even-handed manner; and (5) the failure to keep a complete and accurate record of Daily’s administrative appeal hampered the trial court’s ability to conduct meaningful review of the proceedings. The City challenges the trial court’s conclusions.
There is a whole lot more, and I encourage you to read the opinion. But my probing question is, will Tornow be disbarred for not upholding the US Constitution, and even furthermore removed from the state legislature? This man belongs no where near law books.