Opinion
April 16, 1974
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Ashen & Fogel, Marshall A. Fogel, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Leland M. Coulter and Richard Kaufman, James G. Anderson, Aurora, for defendants-appellants.
SMITH, Judge.
This action was commenced by plaintiff-appellees, residents and taxpayers as well as police officers of the City of Aurora, to enjoin the City of Aurora, through its chief of police, defendant-appellant Putman, from issuing commissions as special police officers to employees of Environmental Developers, Inc. pursuant to an agreement entered into between Aurora and Environmental Developers. The special police officers, in this case, are essentially private security guards employed to patrol Environmental Developers' premises. By their commissions they are authorized to exercise powers similar to regular policemen and are subject to the rules and regulations governing police officers and are subject to the direction and authority of the chief of police. The agreement provided that Environmental Developers, Inc. was to compensate the special officers, provide the necessary workmen's compensation coverage, and maintain insurance covering liability for acts of the officers. Defendants appeal from a judgment granting plaintiffs temporary and permanent injunctive relief. We reverse. Because we conclude that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the city's action, we need not consider appellants' other assertions of error. We have found no authority which authorizes police officers, under the facts of this case, any greater right to sue than that accorded citizens and taxpayers generally.
In Pueblo v. Flanders, 122 Colo. 571, 225 P.2d 832, our Supreme Court stated that an action against municipal corporate authority for injunctive relief may not be maintained by a citizen or taxpayer upon the ground of the illegality of the conduct alone, except in cases of great public concern, and only upon a showing of substantial financial damage by reason of increased tax burden. In that case, citizen-taxpayers urged the illegality of a city policy permitting city-owned fire equipment and city personnel to assist occasionally at fires outside the city. The court held, in part, that the plaintiffs had no standing because of the de minimus damage resulting from the city's policy.
The present case, in our view, does not present a matter of great public concern and no city funds will be expended in the appointment of special police officers. Plaintiffs have suggested to significant damage to the city which would result from appellant Putman's allegedly illegal acts. In the absence of such injury, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the appointment and the judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dissolve the injunctions and to dismiss the action.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and PIERCE, J., concur.