City of Chattanooga v. Davis9/4/2001
As amended September 12, 2001.
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA
v.
KEVIN DAVIS
AND
FRANK BARRETT
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY
Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 225103 Hon. Douglas A. Meyer, Judge Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 98C-1095 Hon. Walter C. Kurtz, Judge
William M. Barker, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which E. Riley Anderson, C.J., and Frank F. Drowota, III, Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., and Janice M. Holder, JJ., joined. Jerry H. Summers, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kevin Davis. Kenneth O. Fritz, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Chattanooga. John E. Herbison, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Frank Barrett. Karl F. Dean and John L. Kennedy, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Peter M. Coughlan, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. James W. Kirby, Nashville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae, Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference.
The primary issue presented by these consolidated cases is whether Article VI, section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibits the laying of fines in excess of fifty dollars unless assessed by a jury, applies to proceedings for the violation of a municipal ordinance. We hold that Article VI, section 14 does apply to such proceedings when either the intended purpose or the actual purpose or effect of the monetary assessment is to serve as a punitive measure. To the extent that O'Dell v. City of Knoxville, 54 Tenn. App. 59, 388 S.W.2d 150 (1964), would compel a contrary conclusion, it is expressly overruled.
We further hold that the assessment imposed by the Chattanooga City Court in City of Chattanooga v. Davis was punitive in its intended purpose and therefore subject to constitutional limitation. As for the assessments imposed in Barrett v. Metropolitan Government, we hold that the actual purpose and effect of all these sanctions were to impose punishment for ordinance violations. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified and explained below in Davis's case, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in Barrett's case. Because no court, other than one of general jurisdiction, has been granted the authority to empanel a jury to determine facts or to impose punishment, we reduce each of the unlawful fines imposed in these cases to fifty dollars, the maximum assessment allowed under such circumstances by Article VI, section 14.
With regard to the additional issues raised in City of Chattanooga v. Davis, we hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 6-54-306 does not facially violate Article VI, section 14. With regard to the allegations that Tennessee Code Annotated sections 6-54-306 and 55-10-307 violate the Class Legislation Clause of Article XI, section 8, we dismiss the challenge to section 6-54-306 as moot. As to section 55-10-307, we hold that this statute does not violate Article XI, section 8 for the sole reasons that a distinction is made between municipalities and unincorporated areas of the state or that different punishments may be imposed by substantially similar or identical offenses. Finally, we hold that Davis lacks legal standing to challenge the policies and practices of the City of Chattanooga that arguably infringe upon the District Attorney General's constitutional
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|