STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5775

September 9, 1980

TOWNSHIPS:

Ordinances regulating purchase, possession or consumption of alcoholic liquor

A township may not enact an ordinance regulating the purchase, possession or consumption of alcoholic liquor by persons under 21 years of age which provides for either criminal penalties or for a greater civil penalty than provided by state law.

Honorable James Defebaugh

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on the following question:

The Legislature, by the enactment of 1978 PA 531, amended 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, Sec. 32b; MCLA 436.33b; MSA 18.1004(2), to impose certain civil fines upon persons less than 21 years of age who purchase, possess or consume alcoholic beverages. As so amended, 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, Sec. 32b, in pertinent part, provides:

By enactment of 1978 PA 531, the Legislature also added section 33c(1) to 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, to provide as follows:

A fair reading of these two provisions indicates some ambiguity as to whether it was the intent of the Legislature to limit the authority of local governmental units to enact ordinances regulating the purchase, possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons less than 21 years of age. Thus, it is appropriate to resort to the legislative history to determine legislative intent. Rapid R Co v Michigan Public Utilities Commission, 225 Mich 425; 196 NW 518 (1923).

1978 PA 531 was introduced in the Michigan Legislature as House Bill No. 6731. As originally introduced, House Bill No. 6731 proposed to amend, in pertinent part, section 33b to provide for certain civil penalties and to add the following subsection (4) thereto to read as follows:

A substitute for House Bill No. 6731 was recommended by the House Committee on Civil Rights to contain the following proposed amendment to section 33b(3):

On second reading of House Bill No. 6731, Rep. DeStigter moved to amend the substitute to strike out all of subsection 3. The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted. 1978 House Journal No. 122, p 3611. Thereafter, the House approved House Bill No. 6731 without further pertinent amendment. 1978 House Journal No 122, p 3612. The Senate amended House Bill No. 6731 by adding a section 33c(1) to the Bill to read as follows:

Thereafter, the Senate approved the Bill without change. 1978 Senate Journal No. 123, p 2703.

The House concurred in the Senate amendments. 1978 House Journal No. 126, p 3856.

Words of a statute should be given their ordinary and natural meaning. Bingham v American Screw Products Co, 398 Mich 546; 248 NW2d 537 (1976). The commonly understood meaning of the term 'corresponding' means to be in conformity or agreement. Webster's Third New International Dictionary. The term 'corresponding' has also been judicially construed to mean 'similar.' Lockheed Aircraft Corp v Rathman, 106 F Supp 810 (SD Cal 1952).

The state has preempted the area of liquor control through 1933 PA Ex Sess 8, supra, pursuant to Const 1963, art 4, Sec. 40. See Noey v City of Saginaw, 271 Mich 595, 596-597; 261 NW 88 (1935), which construed predecessor provisions in 1908 Const, art 16, Sec. 11. 1933 PA Ex Sess 8, supra, statutorily accords municipalities certain local control over the liquor business in the exercise of municipal police powers. Mutchall v City of Kalamazoo, 323 Mich 215; 35 NW2d 245 (1949). However, a municipality is precluded from enacting an ordinance where the ordinance is in direct conflict with the statutory scheme which demands uniform state regulations. People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322-323; 257 NW2d 902 (1977), reh den 402 Mich 954 (1978), cert den 435 US 1008 (1978), reh den 438 US 909; see also Const 1963, art 7, Sec. 22.

It must follow that the Legislature did not intend that a local ordinance impose criminal penalties upon persons under the age of 21 who purchase, possess or consume alcoholic liquor in violation of the local ordinance. Nor did the Legislature intend that the local ordinance impose civil penalties greater than those imposed by 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, Sec. 32b, as last amended by 1978 PA 531, supra. The township ordinance in question directly conflicts with the statutory scheme prescribing civil fines set forth in 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, Sec. 33b(1), as last amended by 1978 PA 531, supra. People v Llewellyn, supra.

It is, therefore, my opinion that a township may not enact ordinance regulating the purchase, possession or consumption of alcoholic liquor by persons under 21 years of age which provides for either criminal penalties or for a greater civil penalty than provided for in 1933 Ex Sess PA 8, Sec. 32b, supra.

Frank J. Kelley