That power, as the opinion in the Osborne case points out, is commonly exerted with respect to highways. Cf. City of St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364, 7 N.W. 734, 38 Am. R. 296, where we upheld an ordinance requiring hacks at union depots to operate from designated stands during certain periods of the day. Under the provisions of L. 1885, c. 145, § 21, subds.
When the power has been delegated in terms of the character employed in the amended charter, the validity of ordinances, prescribing the times, places and manner in which the employment is to be pursued, has been uniformly sustained. Com. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562; s. c., 48 Am. Dec. 679; City of St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364 [7 N.W. 734]; s. c., 38 Am.Rep. 296; Veneman v. Jones, 118 Ind. 41 [20 N.E. 644]; s. c., 10 Am. St. Rep. 100. Such ordinances are in their nature and essence police laws or regulations, and when adopted in the exercise of an express legislative grant of power, there can be no inquiry into or discussion of their policy or reasonableness. 'What the Legislature says may be done, cannot be set aside by the courts, because they may deem it unreasonable or against sound policy.'
The matter of the regulation of hacks, omnibuses, and vehicles for the carriage and transportation of freight and passengers in cities has frequently been before the courts and it is generally conceded this right is peculiarly within the power of the municipality, by ordinances passed for that purpose. Commonwealth v. Stodder, 2 Cush., 562; Commonwealth v. Gage, 114 Mass. 328; City of St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364, 7 N.W. Rep., 734. It is presumed that the municipality, which is intrusted with the public safety and convenience of travelers, is the best judge of the conditions and environments, and that it will not act in an unjust or oppressive manner, but for the good of the whole community.
At a pretrial hearing on suppression issues, one of the trial court's functions is to act as a fact finder and judge the credibility of the witnesses and evidence. City of West St. Paul v. Smith, 404 N.W.2d 16, 18 (Minn.App. 1987) (citation omitted). The district court's finding that Allen violated the noise ordinance is supported by Peterson's testimony that he could hear music coming from Allen's truck from a half to three-quarters of a block away and his testimony about the window-rattling bass. O'Rourke also testified that the music was loud, although he did not recall how far away from the truck he was when he first heard the music.
At a pretrial hearing on suppression issues, one of the trial court's functions is to act as a fact finder and judge the credibility of the witnesses and evidence. City of West St. Paul v. Smith, 404 N.W.2d 16, 18 (Minn.App. 1987) (citing State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980)).
The district court's function at a pretrial hearing on suppression issues is to make factual findings. City of W. St. Paul v. Smith, 404 N.W.2d 16, 18 (Minn.App. 1987). These findings make it possible for the reviewing court to ascertain the basis for the district court's ruling.
My attention has been called to a line of cases, decided in other States, wherein it was held that it was within the regulatory power of the municipal authorities to prescribe the particular place in a hackstand used in connection with railroad depots the vehicles of each particular hackman should stand. ( City of Ottawa v. Bodley, 67 Kan. 178; 72 P. 545; City of St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364; 7 N.W. 734; Veneman v. Jones, 118 Ind. 41; 20 N.E. 644; City Cab, Carriage Transfer Co. v. Hayden, 73 Wn. 24.) But in all those cases provision was made in the hackstand for all hackmen, but in order to prevent confusion and strife, the particular place of each therein was regulated. Indeed there are many cases which hold that it is illegal to prevent all hackmen from plying their trade in a semi-public place, such as a railroad station, and that the prohibition may go so far as to prevent the railroad company from granting to one hackman the right to use exclusively a stand upon the private property of the railroad.
In Veneman v. Jones, 118 Ind. 41, the court said: "There can be no question but that the ordinance authorizing the depot marshal to prescribe the places where omnibuses, hacks and other vehicles should stand at the railroad depot, and requiring drivers to obey the directions of police officers in regard to the places which their respective vehicles should occupy, was a proper regulation and one which the municipal authorities had the power to pass. City of St. Paul v. Smith, 27 Minn. 364; Commonwealth v. Robertson, 5 Cush. 438; Commonwealth v. Stodder, 2 id. 562. Such regulations tend to the convenience of the general public by protecting persons from the annoying solicitations of hackmen and others, who when acting without restraint often confuse travelers, besides engendering strife and contention among themselves.