Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 19 ran up to a fire hydrant in the right of way, allowing Daily to use a snow- blower to clear snow from the hydrant. In April 2006, the City of Sioux Falls' (the "City ") code enforce- ment officer told Daily he would need a variance for the concrete driveway extension. The City's Board of Adjustment denied Daily's application for a variance. Over the next two years, the City issued Daily four citations for the concrete driveway extension. Daily appealed each of the cita- tions. He alleged selective enforcement of the City's municipal code. A hearing was held only on the final two citation's he received. At that hearing, Daily was informed that he bore the burden of proving that the City incorrectly issued the citations. A hearing examiner ulti- mately upheld the final two citations. Daily then brought an action in court. He maintained that the City's administrative appeals process, including the enforcement of its zoning ordinances, violated his constitutional rights to procedural due process. Specifically, Daily argued that the City's administrative appeals process violated the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and article VI, § 2 of the South Dakota Constitution both of which provide that no person shall be deprived of "life, lib- erty, or property without due process of law." The circuit court agreed with Daily. The City appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the City's admin- istrative appeals process deprived Daily of a protected property in- terests without due process of law because Daily was required to bear the burden of proving that the City incorrectly issued the cita- tions (instead of the City bearing the burden of proving the alleged violations) . The court explained that "the requirements of due process apply to adversarial administrative proceedings of local units of govern- ment." Daily could show a due process violation here if he could demonstrate that he had a protected property or liberty interest at stake and that he was deprived of that interest without due process of law, said the court. Each of the citations issued to Daily assessed a civil fine. Assessment of a civil fine "deprives an individual of a protected interest," said the court. As such, the court found that Daily had a protected interest. The court then analyzed whether the City's administrative appeals process deprived Daily of that interest without due process of law. Here, the City took the position that the issuance of a citation by a 2011 Thomson Reuters 3