City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi

“A criminal municipal ordinance can conflict with ‘the criminal laws of the State or Oregon’ for purposes of Article XI, section 2, if it criminalizes behavior that the legislature has chosen should not be subject to criminal sanction, whether that legislative choice is itself reflected in a criminal statute or in a different statutory provision.” State v. Tyler, 168 Or App 600, 604, 7 P3d 624 (2000).

Plaintiff appealed a trial court order affirming a municipal court order allowing defendant’s demurrer and declaring plaintiff’s “hosting” ordinance unconstitutional. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in finding that the state law preempts the local ordinance. Further, Plaintiff argued that the ordinance is a valid exercise of its home rule authority and not preempted by state law. In response, Defendant argued that CMC 5.03.040.010.10 is unconstitutional because ORS 471.410(3), part of the Oregon Liquor Control Act, preempts it. “A criminal municipal ordinance can conflict with ‘the criminal laws of the State or Oregon’ for purposes of Article XI, section 2, if it criminalizes behavior that the legislature has chosen should not be subject to criminal sanction, whether that legislative choice is itself reflected in a criminal statute or in a different statutory provision.” State v. Tyler, 168 Or App 600, 604, 7 P3d 624 (2000). The court found that the ordinance conflicts with the state criminal law and is, therefore, preempted. Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err when it declared the ordinance unconstitutional. Affirmed.