Court hears booting case
Quinn Millett wants to make a change in Logan and he’s willing fight his way to the top to get it.
The court case about booting he brought against the city of Logan made it to the Utah Court of Appeals and the court made its way to Logan Monday, Nov. 27, to hear the case.
Millett’s attorneys, a father and son team of David and Chris Daines, argued the Logan booting ordinance commonly used to enforce parking is unconstitutional and deprived Millett of his right to due process.
The argument Chris Daines used when presenting to the three Appeals judges is that because Logan made an ordinance regulating booting, which was previously a private action, booting now constitutes a state action. He said booting is unconstitutional as a state action because the person whose car has been booted is not allowed the right to contest it in court, like a traffic ticket, so when the car is booted, it is theft and the $50 fine to remove the boot could be considered extortion.
He also argued that landlords should not be the ones who call for a boot, because they are not the ones being affected; the person who can’t park because of a car parking illegally should be the person to call in a boot.
Millet said he brought the case to court because he wants to find “a more equitable parking solution.”
Kymber Housley, an attorney for the city of Logan, said the ordinance is lawful because booting is not a right exclusive to the city under the ordinance.
Logan attorney Miles Jensen said the case brought against Logan shouldn’t stand because the city itself is not a participant in booting, it only regulates things like placement of signs and maximum removal fees.
“Quinn Millet doesn’t dispute that he didn’t know about the booting, that he didn’t pay the fine or that he wasn’t a tenant,” Jensen said. “We believe the court should not interfere with the contract of private parties.”
Millet said, “I feel the booting ordinance is heavy-handed and one-sided. I’d like to see the students work together to find a solution. Ideally win or lose, I want students to take another look at booting and say, ‘Let’s figure out something else.'”
The Appeals Court also heard the case State v. Rhinehart, in which a woman was facing court cases for both theft and homicide. Her complaint was that the theft case was tried before the homicide case and that created an unfair situation because she couldn’t question witnesses as vigorously as she wanted to.
The Utah Court of Appeals has not yet released their official decision, but the attorneys for Logan and Millett have dinner riding on the outcome.