A Lawrence bar owner has reignited the debate over the city’s smoking ban by filing a legal motion in Municipal Court claiming the ban is unconstitutional.

Dennis Steffes — the president of Tremors Inc., which operates Coyote’s, 1003 E. 23rd St., and Last Call, 729 N.H. — filed a motion Monday contending a state law governing smoking supersedes the Lawrence ordinance and that the Lawrence ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague.”

It is the first legal challenge to the city’s ban on smoking in most public settings, said David Corliss, assistant city manager and director of legal services. The ban began July 1.

“I’m not necessarily opposed to us becoming a smokeless society, but I’m opposed to the way we’re going about it in Lawrence,” Steffes said.

He makes his arguments as part of a Municipal Court case that alleges his two bars violated the smoking ordinance on four separate dates in September and October.

City officials say they’re not convinced by Steffes’ arguments and will defend the ban’s validity.

“We think the ordinance is constitutional, and we will defend it appropriately,” Corliss said.

Specifically, Steffes argues that a 2003 state law that spells out when and where smoking is allowed in public places trumps the Lawrence law. The state law allows for designated smoking areas if they meet certain standards. Steffes said the city has the legal authority to stiffen those standards but does not have the legal right to ban smoking in public places.

Lawrence is not the only city to adopt smoking regulations, but Lawrence’s ordinance is generally regarded as the strictest in the state.

Dennis Steffes, owner of Coyote's, 1003 E. 23rd St., and Last Call, 729 N.H., has filed a motion in municipal court claiming the city's public smoking ban is unconstitutional.

Judy Keller, executive director of the American Lung Association of Kansas and a supporter of the city’s ordinance, said other communities across the country had passed similar laws.

“It is very hard for me to believe this isn’t constitutional,” she said. “It is not throwing out the state law in any way. It is just providing additional workplace safety.”

Steffes and his Topeka attorney, William Rork, also argue the law is too vague to be constitutional. The motion argues that the definitions of smoking and what constitutes a public place where smoking is prohibited are not specific enough.

Steffes also said he thought the enforcement provisions were untenable. Under the city’s ordinance, the business owner, not the smoker, is cited for violating the ordinance.

“The public is not being punished,” Steffes said. “We’re being punished, and that is not right.”

Corliss declined to comment on specific allegations in the motion, but Keller said the reason the ordinance was written to fine businesses instead of their smoking patrons was because its intent was to protect workers’ safety.

“It is up to the business to provide a clean, healthy, safe environment for its workers,” she said.

Steffes, though, said the city had provided no instructions to business owners on how to deal with patrons who violated the law. He said sometimes patrons refused to comply with the law once they were told to extinguish their cigarettes.

“The city needs to give me a program of what I’m supposed to do,” Steffes said. “They have never clearly told me if I’m supposed to call the police. I have no idea how to handle this from a liability standpoint. Are we supposed to drag people out of there by their feet?”

Steffes is scheduled to appear in Municipal Court this morning regarding the alleged violations at his two businesses.

6News video: Business owner files suit over smoking ban Smoking compromise fizzles (12-15-04) 6News video: Smoking ban compromise goes nowhere (12-14-04) Smoking ban opponents challenge safety concerns (12-13-04) Smoking ban likely here to stay (12-04-04) 6News video: Smoking ban petition now invalid (12-03-04) On the Street: Should the City Commission compromise at all on the workplace smoking ban? 6News video: Opponents of smoking ban seeks compromise with commission (12-02-04) Smoking ban vote unlikely (12-03-04) Niccum: The smoking ban rocks (12-03-04) More stories about the smoking ban