Booting lawsuit booted
Nearly a year after current ASUSU President Quinn Millet filed a complaint against Logan City, claiming that booting a car was a violation of civil rights, a 1st District judge let the air out of the case last month – dismissing the suit.
Millet’s vehicle was booted more than a year ago at D’s Bridgerland Apartments when, he says, he parked in a manager’s stall that was “not well marked.” After researching the issue, Millet says he found the practice of booting to be unconstitutional.
But while Millet says the act does not provide due process to the booted and is “heavy handed” and “predatory toward students,” Judge Gordon Low disagreed and dismissed the case on July 15.
City Attorney Kymber Housley said Millet and his attorneys took a “shotgun approach” to the issue, presenting an unfocused and unfounded argument.
Because the city had passed an ordinance to help control booting – putting a cap on fees and requiring adequate signage – Housley said Millet’s case tried to make the city accountable for private booters.
“They just didn’t have the merit and they were grasping at straw trying to create some novel arguments,” he said.
“Booting by private businesses hired by private owners has been going on long before we ever passed an ordinace. The act of regulating the conduct itself does not equate to state action. That’s based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings. There are a lot of things the government regulates, but that doesn’t make it the actor. If the city was out doing the booting, then their argument would have some merit.”
Since the boot was applied to Millet’s car by a private company, Housley said the Judge determined small claims court provided sufficient due process for people who feel they were booted unfairly. Still, Millet disagrees.
“When a student has to pay more to appeal in small claims court than they do to remove the boot, it’s not equitable,” he said.
Millet does agree, however, that the argument presented was unclear.
“There are so many problems with booting and we made our case illustrating each of them,” he said. “So much information may have confused the judge.”
Millet and his attorneys, USU professor David Daines and his son Chris Daines, plan to clarify their argument when they appeal the matter.
“It was not unexpected that a local judge would not overturn what a local city council would do,” David Daines said. “We are expecting to appeal and consider that we have excellent grounds for getting a reversal on the appeal.”
Housley said he has not heard from the plaintiff concerning the appeal.
In the interim, he said the city is looking to tweak its booting policies further, requiring booters to wear identifiable clothing and mandating property owners put up even more signs.
“We’re not opposed to refining it and making it better,” he said.
-acf@cc.usu.edu