Booting case challenges civil rights
After filing his complaint last September, a Utah State University student had his day in court to present, what he considers, a violation of his civil rights.
Quinn Millet, a USU student who filed a complaint on his behalf against D’s Bridgerland Apartments, Inc., and Cache Auto Booting Service, sat in the 1st District Court of Cache Valley court room Friday morning with his co-representatives, USU professor David Daines and his son, Chris Daines.
With Judge Gordon Low presiding over the case, Miles Jensen, representing the D’s Bridgerland Apartments, Inc., motioned to dismiss the complaint and argued the plaintiff, Millet, mischaracterizes the Logan City booting ordinance. Jensen said the plaintiff signed a contract with the apartment owner indicating his agreement with the parking policies.
With or without the ordinance, booting will continue to happen, Jensen said.
“[There was] extensive booting before the ordinance,” he said. “If the court declared it unconstitutional today, there would still be booting tomorrow.”
With the courtroom void of a large attendance, Jensen said it was important to notice the lack of students presenting the same problem to the court.
Currently, the booting ordinance permits apartment owners to contract private booting companies to boot vehicles without parking permits in their parking lots.
Chris said, “booting can be lawful and appropriate absent of this ordinance,” but as it currently stands, it violates the plaintiff’s civil rights. With the booting practices as is, it is “pure, unadulterated theft and extortion,” David said.
The plaintiff’s co-representatives argued booting specially injures and damages the victim when ordered by a landlord. The landlord is never specially injured with the parking violations, David said. The only individual who is injured is the tenant if someone is parking in their assigned space or in the general parking lot. The ordinance is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the booters to seize an individual’s property, Chris said, and does not give the individual any “procedural safeguards against abuses.”
Other cities, such as Provo and Orem, have adopted similar practices, David said.
“No other ordinances I could find . . . are so far off the map,” on unconstitutionality of those in Utah, David said. “There are landlords who have competent legal advice out of Salt Lake.”
Chris argued the ordinance does not allot the right of the tenant to call a booting company to boot a vehicle that is violating apartment parking regulations. This violates the tenants civil rights because he is allowed, under common law, to take action if the individual is specially injured or damaged – such as an individual using the lease’s parking space, Chris said.
“It is a violation of due process if an ordinance extends beyond the common law right to seize property,” David said.
Low said this case is based on whether or not the ordinance is constitutional. Logan City did not have representation at the hearing, although city attorney David Church was present. Church said the city wouldn’t concede the ordinance was unconstitutional.
“You, your city, has been affected without being heard,” Judge Low said to Church. Low requested the plaintiffs to draft a motion to be submitted to the court by Feb. 21 and Church to have within 10 days of that filing to file a brief on behalf of the city by March 14, with the defendants filing – if they chose – by March 31.
“I want this fully and fairly briefed,” Low said. “I’m just trying to make this fair.”
Millet said feels good about the procedure and the completion of this hearing. He said, “this case is important because it if indicative of the judge in favor,” of the Millet’s case. David said the case went well.
“[This was an] excellent opportunity to educate the judge and council on an area of the law that doesn’t normally come up,” he said.
Les Essig, Associated Students of USU president, said he was disappointed that the city did not have representation.
“I’m impressed with the Judge’s decision,” Essig said. “The city ordinance is unconstitutional.”
-kcashton@cc.usu.edu