State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit
399 P.3d 663, 771 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, 242 Ariz. 588 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona's home rule doctrine, a state law will supersede a conflicting charter city ordinance if the law's subject matter is of statewide concern rather than a purely local municipal affair. The regulation of firearms and the disposition of property by law enforcement agencies are matters of statewide concern.
Facts:
- The City of Tucson is a 'charter city' organized under Article 13, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, which grants it a degree of self-governance.
- In 2000, the Arizona Legislature declared that firearms regulation is a matter of statewide concern and intended to preempt local regulation.
- In 2005, the City of Tucson passed Ordinance No. 10146 (codified as Tucson Code § 2-142), which required its police department to dispose of most unclaimed and forfeited firearms by destroying them.
- In 2013, the Arizona Legislature amended state statutes (A.R.S. §§ 12-945(B) and 13-3108(F)) to expressly prohibit any political subdivision from destroying firearms.
- The 2013 state laws require that such firearms be sold to authorized businesses.
- Between 2013 and October 2016, the City of Tucson, acting pursuant to its local ordinance, destroyed approximately 4,800 firearms.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2016, the Arizona Legislature enacted A.R.S. § 41-194.01, creating a new procedure for challenging local ordinances.
- In October 2016, State Representative Mark Finchem requested that the Arizona Attorney General investigate the City of Tucson's firearm destruction ordinance.
- The Attorney General investigated and issued a report in November 2016 concluding that Tucson Code § 2-142 'may violate' state law.
- In December 2016, the Tucson City Council refused to repeal its ordinance but agreed to suspend its implementation pending a court ruling.
- Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B)(2), the Attorney General then filed this special action directly in the Supreme Court of Arizona to resolve the legal conflict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona state law, which prohibits political subdivisions from destroying firearms and requires their sale, supersede a conflicting City of Tucson ordinance that mandates the destruction of unclaimed or forfeited firearms, under the home rule provision of the Arizona Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Vice Chief Justice Pelander
Yes. The state laws supersede the conflicting city ordinance because the regulation of firearms and the disposition of property by law enforcement are matters of statewide concern. The court's long-standing test for resolving conflicts between state law and charter city ordinances is to determine whether the subject matter is of statewide or purely local concern. The state possesses broad police powers related to public safety, the conduct of law enforcement, and the regulation of firearms. The City’s disposition of unclaimed and forfeited firearms is an exercise of police power delegated by the state, and thus is a governmental function of statewide interest. Because the state legislature has declared firearms regulation to be a matter of statewide concern and has enacted a comprehensive scheme, the state statutes control, and Tucson’s conflicting ordinance is invalid under the Arizona Constitution.
Concurring - Justice Bolick
Yes. Justice Bolick, concurring in the result, agrees that the state law prevails but argues the majority's 'statewide vs. local concern' test is a 'jurisprudential muddle' not grounded in the constitution's text. He contends the plain language of Article 13, Section 2, which states that a city charter must be 'consistent with, and subject to... the laws of the state,' is unambiguous. Therefore, any state law should automatically supersede a conflicting charter city ordinance, rendering the court's complex, case-by-case analysis unnecessary and improper. He would overrule the precedent that created the statewide vs. local concern test.
Concurring - Justice Gould
Yes. Justice Gould, concurring in the result, joins the majority's conclusion that the state law preempts the city ordinance. He writes separately to address the statutory bond requirement in A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B)(2), which the majority discusses but does not definitively rule upon. Justice Gould concludes that the bond provision is unenforceable not because it is unconstitutional, but because it is 'incomplete and unintelligible.' He argues the statute fails to specify the bond's purpose, the consequences for non-payment, or the conditions for its forfeiture or exoneration, making it impossible for the Court to enforce.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that state legislative authority prevails over charter city 'home rule' powers when the subject matter involves statewide interests, particularly those related to the state's police power like firearms regulation. It also validates A.R.S. § 41-194.01, a controversial statute that allows a single legislator to trigger an Attorney General investigation and special action against a municipality, thereby creating a powerful new mechanism for the state to enforce its policy preferences on local governments. By rejecting a balancing test and adhering to the traditional 'statewide vs. local concern' framework, the court signals a limit to charter city autonomy in areas the legislature has declared to be of statewide importance, likely leading to more preemption challenges in the future.
