Kankakee Valley Post, Volume 19, Number 18, DeMotte, Jasper County, 1 April 1949 — Scalping Ban Is Lifted By State Court [ARTICLE]

Scalping Ban Is Lifted By State Court

Supreme Court Voids State's Seven-Year Ban On Scalping Of Tickets An Indiana Supreme Court decision, which voided the state’s seven-year ban on ticket scalping, yesterday opened the door to athletic and theatrical ticket agencies in the state’s major cities. The high courvs ruling reversed, by a 4-to-2 vote, the conviction of Otis F. Kirtley, Muncie real estate man, charged with selling $3 tickets to the 1948 state basketball tournament for $25. It declared unconstitutional a 1941 law forbidding sale of tickets “at less or greater amounts” than the normal price. The opinion held the law was a violation of the personal liberty and state’s right to regulate sections of the constitution. Possibility that ticket “brokers” will take advantage of the ruling was predicted due to the demand for sports and theatrical event admissions. Most metropolitan areas have agencies which buy tickets for resale in convenient downtown offices. However, tickets to events under sponsorship of the Indiana High School Athletic Association are difficult to procure, being distributed under strict control, and it was believed they would remain on an individual “scalper” proposition. : Admissions to attractions as the 500-Mile Race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, college athletics and special stage presentations could be used to sustain profitable but legitimate tickets “offices.” Kirtley’s case began here in Municipal Court and was transferred to Criminal Court 2, where he was fined SSO and costs on conviction by Judge Saul Rabb. He moved to have the affidavit quashed but was overruled. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Judge Frank Gilkison, sutained the Kirtley motion and ordered the lower court to quash the affidavit. Also favoring the majority opinion were Judges Oliver Starr, Floyd Draper and Howard S. Young. Judges Paul G. Jasper and James A. Emmert were in the minority by disagreeing but did not file a dissenting opinion. The court said the law violated the first article of the state constitution which grants each citizen the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to the opinion, the law also violated the right of a citizen to engage in any occupation he saw fit providing the occupation did not endanger the public welfare.