Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol XII

Today's weird but true legal case involves a municipality's attempt to enact legislation regulating the barber industry and the haircut that the city took in trying to prosecute the barber who had the temerity to attempt to violate the ordinance.

In People ex rel. Pinello v. Leadbitter, 194 Misc. 481, 85 N.Y.S.2d 287 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess Cty. 1948) the court reviewed the attempts by the City of Poughkeepsie to prosecute a barber who violated the following city ordinance:

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to open or keep open, any Barber Shop, Hairdressing Establishment or place of business where barbering or hairdressing is practiced, or to do any barbering or hairdressing, whether for compensation or not, on any Sunday or on any of the following holidays, to wit: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and no Barber Shop or Hairdressing Establishment shall be opened for business whether for compensation or not, earlier than 8:30 A.M., nor shall any Barber Shop or Hairdressing Establishment close later than 6:30 P.M. throughout the year.’

In this matter, the barber was observed opening his shop and cutting the hair of a customer at 8:05 AM. In the within habeas corpus proceeding, the barber challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance and the City of Poughkeepsie asserted that it was within its police powers to regulate the time that barbers can give haircuts.

Prior to analyzing the city ordinance, the court gave the background for the City's power to enact legislation, stating:

Local ordinances or regulations enacted by virtue of the police power generally are limitations upon or abrogations of constitutionally guaranteed rights and such regulations to be valid and enforceable must conform to certain well defined standards. The general standard which evolves from a consideration of many cases on the subject of police power is that a law or ordinance which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable and must bear a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained, namely the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public. The constitutional rights of a citizen may never be curtailed by an unreasonable regulation passed by virtue of police power. A legislative body may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest, interfere with private rights by imposing arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions upon a lawful business.

Following the discourse on the standard governing the regulation of industry, the court observed that the "occupation of barbering is a well recognized trade, and is regarded as more or less indispensable in our present-day way of life. Clearly, the relationship of the barber to the public is such as to render him amenable to legislative regulation to the end that those who patronize him may be protected from communicable diseases, unhealthful practices and unsanitary conditions, so far as practicable."

With this introduction, it might have seemed plausible that the court would allow Poughkeepsie to regulate the hours at barbershops as within the purview of protecting public health. However, the judge ruled the ordinance unconstitutional, explaining that:

Any contention that the regulation is a health measure designed to prevent those engaged in barbering from working long hours thereby impairing their efficiency and competence is fanciful indeed. To reason that hours of opening and closing of barber shops have a reasonable relation to the public health and safety is to overlook the practical aspect of the problem. It would seem that the public will be just as healthy and safe whether a shop opens or closes at the hours specified in the regulation, or at some other reasonable time convenient to the trade. Allowing that hours of work have a reasonable relation to the public health or safety, they can only be effectual as health or safety measures if limited to the number of hours per day or week that the individual barber is permitted to work.

Nor can there be any real merit to the contention that the regulation should be upheld upon the theory that it facilitates adequate inspection of the barber shops, thus inuring to the public health. Certainly, opportunity exists without absolute closing of barber shops for reasonable inspection. It does not, and can hardly be made to appear that any inspection must be continuous, covering every hour a barber shop is open. Any regulation compelling the opening or closing of barber shops between certain hours because it will be inconvenient for the authorities to inspect them-when they are open at other hours amply sufficient for such inspection-is an unnecessary and unreasonable interference with the operation of a lawful trade.

Not content to merely strike down the ordinance, the Judge then took a swipe at Poughkeepsie's rationale for passing the law, stating that:

Seemingly, the regulation under consideration was not designed as a health measure to protect the public or proprietors or employees engaged in the barbering trade, or to facilitate sanitary inspections, but rather to protect certain members of the trade from lawful competition. The regulation in no sense tends to promote or preserve public health, morals, comfort or welfare. It is but an arbitrary and unwarranted interference with a merchant's business. One, or a number of barbers may desire to open or close their shops at a particular time. They may do so. However, they cannot, by legislation, compel every other proprietor to open or close at the same hours. If, to serve their own purposes those engaged in barbering in the City of Poughkeepsie wish to effect what is sought to be effected by this regulation, they will have to accomplish it by friendly arrangement with the membership of those engaged in the trade, not by resort to compulsory legislation.

It should be noted that the City of Poughkeepsie did not sit back and accept the shave administered by the Judge in this action. Instead, the City appealed to the Appellate Division and ultimately to the Court of Appeals who affirmed the ruling that the statute was unconstitutional.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

No comments: