Request By:
Ms. Harriet L. Black
City Clerk
City of Russell Springs
P.O. Box 247
Russell Springs, Kentucky 42642
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter raising a question concerning the playing of pool in the city on Sunday. You state that complaints have been received by the police department in reference to a recently opened recreation center that permits pool playing on Sunday.
KRS 436.160 and 436.165 deal with working on Sunday and local restrictions on retail sales and activities on Sunday. The provisions of those statutes have, however, been substantially affected by the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in
Commonwealth v. Southerland, Ky., 601 S.W.2d 908 (1980). The Court said that an employer who routinely operates his business for a substantial period of time each and every day of the week may operate it on Sunday if each of his employes is allowed one full day off during each calendar week. Thus, if the business in question comes within the terms of the Court's decision the city cannot utilize the provisions of KRS 436.160 and 436.165 to restrict pool playing in the city on a Sunday.
While a city may not be able to regulate pool playing pursuant to the Sunday closing provisions, it may enact reasonable ordinances in regard to the operation of pool rooms within the city limits pursuant to other authority. KRS 82.082, the home-rule provision for cities, provides in part that a city may exercise any power and perform any function that is in furtherance of a public purpose of the city and not in conflict with a constitutional provision or statute.
In the case of
Arms v. Town of Vine Grove, 203 Ky. 213, 262 S.W. 11 (1924), the Court said that the city in question, under its general powers, has the authority to regulate or even prohibit the operation of poolrooms. The city may utilize its police power to protect the public morals and the general welfare of its citizens. In its opinion the Court quoted from
Murphy v. People of the State of California, 225 U.S. 623, 32 S. Ct. 697, 56 L. Ed. 1229 (1912) in part as follows:
"'. . . The fact that there had been no disorder or open violation of the law does not prevent the municipal authorities from taking legislative notice of the idleness and other evils which result from the maintenance of a resort where it is the business of one to stimulate others to play beyond what is proper for legitimate recreation. The ordinance is not aimed at the game but at the place; and where, in the exercise of the police power, the municipal authorities determine that the keeping of such resorts should be prohibited, the courts cannot go behind their findings and inquire into local conditions; or whether the defendant's hall was an orderly establishment, or had been conducted in such a manner as to produce the evils sought to be prevented by the ordinance. . . .'"
In
Bates v. City of Franklin, 203 Ky. 357, 262 S.W. 282 (1924), the Court said in part:
". . . The keeping of a pool room has a harmful tendency, especially in small towns and communities. It encourages idleness, induces persons to spend more time at the game than is good for them either morally or physically. Such occupations may be prohibited altogether in the discretion of the legislative body of the city."
In
City of Jackson v. Murray-Reed-Slone & Co., 297 Ky. 1, 178 S.W.2d 847 (1944), the Court noted that:
"Ordinances prescribing the hours of opening and closing of several character of business activities which have potential influences detrimental to public morals, such as pool-rooms, soft drink stands, roadhouses, tourist camps, pawn shops, secondhand stores, junk dealers, etc., are upheld on the ground that they tend to remove the potential detrimental influence. . . ."
In McQuillin Mun.Corp. (3rd Ed.), Vol. 6, § 24.149, it is stated that pool and billiardrooms and tables for public use may be subject to municipal regulation, prohibition or suppression. You may also wish to examine McQuillin Mun. Corp. (3rd Ed.), Vol. 6, §§ 24.150 to 24.155 dealing with municipal regulation of pool and billiard halls;
Walters v. Binder, Ky., 435 S.W.2d 464, 467 (1968); 100 A.L.R.3d 252, 264.
Finally, you should also consider the provisions of KRS 436.320, copy enclosed, which state in part that no person owning or controlling a billiard or pool table shall permit, for compensation or reward, any minor under 18 years of age to play any game on the table, unless such minor shall have first displayed an identification card containing his name, age, photograph, and the signature of his parents or guardian. A penalty is provided for violation of these requirements and the identification card is subject to inspection at any time by any peace officer. See OAG 67-74, copy enclosed.
Thus, while a city can no longer utilize the provisions of the Sunday Closing Law to prohibit a pool hall from operating on Sunday if that establishment is routinely operated for a substantial period of time each and every day of the week and if each of the employes of that establishment is allowed one full day off during each calendar week, the city, under its police powers to protect the public morals and the general welfare of its citizens, may enact reasonable ordinances to regulate (hours of operation, location, etc.) the operation of pool halls within the city limits.