ÿWPCY šÌ•-Œœü¶‚C>n$‚Y!_CFð”rõO“×8ÇöY±a¦µãùx®GþþŒæpÚ{|Õ1BýKŽÅ^8iC¿Þ}EŒ[® †Èj”•=y>aB,ˆ.É4™éè ­w’ʵ™í¼9Öÿ*¥©yÿ÷Z¼¨èxÿäßåé­Œ#/÷÷6ì‹à ôÚiÐ$.B*¬ù÷þƒDãù¥¡}“/ýÐ5AàÏÜŒ¢,t)ë4-©ÕnvxÙ¹ò÷‚Y^/hlêõ­w·†"±þÏ´`ƒ‘׫QW‰rv°Ul|W‹¬¢ï ƒ~Ä 6ƒœÜÌJ,Q7T¿ÈncY¤“ý)™…·èÕ¹²5Cë\¾²5ƒD·ßëJ¥‹Ó1‹m®ç*Š?ú е¢4ÄN‘ò%ݸ/€Ïù…ºñ™šý37÷‡ùJã0•´hŠxâcvÖè?*¢ ê-Ež÷ù&¥d‘ºfB‚°aq ȡӑ T ÷NX5ãÈý)Äy³£Hø_vèRþ¡Òi ©L°üj——Gòàwëlüðà‡= 7CàPAw07µ^Èk£•G&'”ÇuâLâJÌàsõûÊøËžb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1 0D÷N;=U NEE““¹••••••••••••••••••••••bNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0ëVVVV BAA 0¤^ D3 D-5 0Kbb AS­Æ 0¤Æ 0Dj A«®˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 »na)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularàN[)ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(uHš Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ¯Ý ƒRlç$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ X¡X» »ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€recently€in€òòTown€of€Ô_ÔNolensvilleÔ_Ô€v.€Kingóó,€No.€M1999„Ð ° Ð02512„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1291984€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€14,€2000),€again€held€that€a€municipalÐ œì Ðcourt€may€impose€a€ð ðpenaltyðð€of€greater€than€$50.00€without€a€jury.€The€Court€reiterated€itsÐ ˆØ Ðreasoning€in€òòBarrettóó€that€the€ð ðfineðð€was€in€the€nature€of€a€civil€debt€and€that€the€petitioner€couldÐ tÄ Ðobtain€a€jury€on€appeal.€€òòBarrettóó€and€òòÔ_ÔNolensvilleÔ_Ôóó€also€may€be€distinguished€from€the€present€case€inÐ `° Ðthat€they€were€dealing€with€zoning€ordinances€that€do€not€mirror€State€criminal€law€in€the€way€theÐ L œ Ðdriving€ordinances€do.€€- ù-(|G2lç$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€AL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X!¬X»»Ô d(|3Íù$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€AL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Íù$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€AL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vt»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ ¼Oý»» »ÔÑ8€8´XXdê»»d 8Ñà@¦ ¦ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  Ðà@••ìàAugust€9,€2000€SessionˆÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔÌò òÔ#† ¼Oý»X X¡ #ÔÓ  ÓCITY€OF€CHATTANOOGA€v.€KEVIN€DAVISòòóóÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔó óÐ Ò" ÐÓæÓÌà@½ ½ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyˆÐ Ò " Ðà@{ { ìàNo.225103€€€€€€Hon.€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeˆÐ ¾  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àFILED€OCTOBER€31,€2000Ð – æ  Ðà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` A߈Ð ‚Ò  ÐÌà@ùùìàNo.€2000„00664„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€ˆÐ }Í  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  Ðó óÌÔ#† ¼Oý»X X¡#ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part,Ð <Œ ÐReversed€in€Part;€Case€Remanded.ó óÐ (x ÐÌòòHerschel€Pickens€FranksÔ#† ¼Oý»à X¡Ê#ÔÔ‡ X¡X. ¼OýÔ,óó€J.,€dissentingÔ#† ¼Oý»X X¡Î#ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔ.Ð P ÐÌò òó óÔ#† ¼Oý»X X¡##ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔÌà  àà ` àThe€ultimate€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€the€Courts€of€this€State€will€accord€to€KevinÐ Ä ÐDavis,€who€was€convicted€and€fined€$300.00€in€City€Court€for€reckless€driving,€all€of€hisÐ ° Ðconstitutional€rights€under€the€Constitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€Ô#† ¼Oý»X X¡‚#ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔoriginal€Tennessee€State€Constitution€of€1796€and€carried€forth€in€subsequentÐ tÄ Ðconstitutions,€is€the€provision€now€designated€as€Article€VI,€Section€14,€which€states:Ð `° Ðòòò òóóó óÓ  Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àNo€fine€shall€be€laid€on€any€citizen€of€this€State€that€shall€exceed€fifty€dollars,Ð 8ˆ Ðunless€it€shall€be€assessed€by€a€jury€of€his€peers,€who€shall€assess€the€fine€at€theÐ $ t Ðtime€they€find€the€fact,€if€they€think€the€fine€should€be€more€than€fifty€dollars.Ð!` ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà ` àA€trial€judge€may€set€a€fine€of€more€than€$50€in€only€two€circumstances,€when€theÐ è"8" Ðdefendant€waives€the€right€for€jury€determination€of€the€fine,€and€when€the€fine€is€statutorilyÐ Ô#$# Ðspecified€and€allows€no€judicial€discretion€in€its€imposition.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€940€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔS.W.2dÔ#† X¡XXX¡ #Ô€567,Ð À$ $ Ð570€Ô‡X¡XX X¡Ô(Tenn.Ô#† X¡XXX¡† #Ô€1997)€(citing€òòState€v.€Sandersóó,€735€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔS.W.2dÔ#† X¡XXX¡ù #Ô€856,€858€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1987)€andÐ ¬%ü % ÐòòFrance€v.€Stateóó,€65€Tenn.€478,€486€(1873)).ûÿÿdûÐ ˜&è!& Ðà  àüÿÿdüÌà  àà ` àThe€City€Judge€for€the€City€Court€of€Chattanooga€fined€Davis€$300.00€after€DavisÐ p(À#( Ðplead€guilty€to€the€charge€of€reckless€driving.€€The€relevant€city€ordinance€under€which€DavisÐ \)¬$) Ðwas€fined€is€Section€24„13€of€the€Chattanooga€City€Code.€€This€section€states:ûÿÿdûÐ H*˜%* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òüÿÿdüÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àSec.€24„13.€Reckless€driving.ó óÐ ,p',` (#` (# ÐÐ  -\(-ý  ÐÔ_Ôà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)€Any€person€who€drives€any€vehicle€in€wilful€or€wantonÐ ° Ðdisregard€for€the€safety€of€persons€or€property€is€guilty€of€recklessÐ œì Ðdriving.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(b)€Every€person€convicted€of€reckless€driving€shall€beÐ `° Ðpunished€upon€the€first€conviction€by€a€fine€of€not€less€than€fiveÐ L œ Ðdollars€($5.00),€on€a€second€conviction€by€a€fine€of€not€less€thanÐ 8 ˆ Ðten€dollars€($10.00),€on€a€third€conviction€by€a€fine€of€not€less€thanÐ $ t Ðtwenty„five€dollars€($25.00)€and€on€all€subsequent€convictions€by€aÐ  ` Ðfine€of€not€less€than€fifty€dollars€($50.00).ûÿÿdûÐü L ` x` x ÐÌÓwÓüÿÿdüChattanooga€City€Code,€Section€24„13.ûÿÿdûÐ Ô$  ÐÓCÓà  àüÿÿdüà ` àThe€City€of€Chattanooga€argues€that€the€imposition€of€the€$300€fine€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðauthorized€by€T.C.A.€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡D#Ô€6„54„306€and€Chattanooga€City€Code€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡®#Ô€1„8(a).€€T.C.A.€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡#Ô€6„54„306Ð ˜è  Ðprovides:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àPenalty€for€violation€of€home€rule€municipal€ordinances.ò ò€ð!ð€ó óAll€home€ruleÐ \¬ Ðmunicipalities€are€empowered€to€set€maximum€penalties€of€thirty€(30)€daysÐ Lœ Ðimprisonment€and/or€monetary€penalties€and€forfeitures€up€to€five€hundred€dollarsÐ 8ˆ Ð($500),€or€both,€to€cover€administrative€expenses€incident€to€correction€ofÐ $t Ðmunicipal€violations.Ð`` (#` (# ÐÌÓ6ÓSimilarly,€Section€1„8(a)€of€the€Chattanooga€City€Code€states:Ð è8 ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWherever€in€this€Code€or€in€any€ordinance€or€rule€or€regulationÐ À Ðpromulgated€by€any€officer€of€the€city€under€authority€vested€inÐ ¬ü Ðhim€by€law€or€ordinance,€any€act€is€prohibited€or€is€declared€to€beÐ ˜è Ðunlawful€or€a€misdemeanor,€or€the€doing€of€any€act€is€required,€orÐ „Ô Ðthe€failure€to€do€any€act€is€declared€to€be€unlawful,€the€violation€ofÐ pÀ Ðany€such€provision€of€this€Code€or€any€such€ordinance,€rule€orÐ \ ¬ Ðregulation€shall€be€punished€by€a€monetary€penalty€and€forfeitureÐ H!˜ Ðnot€exceeding€five€hundred€dollars€($500.00).Ð4"„ ` x` x ÐÌÓ- ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€City€argues€that€the€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€civil€rather€thanÐ  $\" Ðcriminal€in€nature,€and€as€such,€the€constitutional€provision€does€not€apply.€The€City€suggestsÐ ø$H # Ðthat€the€record€shows€that€the€legislative€purpose€of€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€was€to€ð ðreduce€theÐ ä%4!$ Ðeconomic€detriment€to€municipal€government.€.€.€by€assisting€the€City€to€help€cover€theÐ Ð& "% Ðadministrative€expense€for€prosecuting€cases€under€municipal€ordinances.ðð€€The€City€relies€onÐ ¼' #& Ðthe€legislative€history€to€show€that€the€statute€was€meant€to€be€remedial,€and€therefore€civil,€inÐ ¨(ø#' Ðnature.€€Ð ”)ä$( Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€this€regard,€the€legislative€history€of€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€reveals€thoseÐ l+¼&* Ðsponsoring€the€passage€of€statute€had€a€more€punitive€purpose€in€mind€for€it.€€The€following€isÐ ° Ðfrom€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€on€April€23,€1991:Ð œì Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àREPRESENTATIVE€KENT:€.€.€.€youððre€not€raising€the€fee.€€This€is€a€penaltyÐ tÄ Ðclause€when€people€wonððt€clean€up€their€properties,€such€as,€for€example,€the€adultÐ `° Ðentertainment€things,€people€have€cars€on€there.€€Sometimes€when€you€bring€themÐ L œ Ðback€into€court,€you€know,€on€a€$50€fine€on€contempt,€thatððs€just€no€enough€to€getÐ 8 ˆ Ðtheir€attention.€€The€30€days€imprisonment€is€in€the€present€law,€which€stays€inÐ $ t Ðthis€law,€that€raises€it€$50€to€$100.Ð `` (#` (# ÐÌÓõÓÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*****Ð è 8  ÐÓÎ!ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àREPRESENTATIVE€TURNER:€€Now,€this€raises€the€fines€on€what?ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àKENT:€Itððs€not€the€fines;€itððs€a€penalty€where€if€a€person€doesnððt€cleanÐ ˜è  Ðup€a€certain€area,€after€they€bring€it€back€to€the€Court€in€(inaudible)Ð „Ô  Ðviolations,€the€penalty€is€$500,€goes€up.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€some€of€the€categories,€some€of€the€categories€are€adultÐ H˜ Ðentertainment,€any€violation€connected€with€alcoholic€beverages€andÐ 4„ Ðall,€lot€of€times€these€people,€then€you€bring€them€back€to€court€forÐ  p Ðthe€violations,€they€wonððt€even€show€up€and€they€just€forfeiture€theÐ  \ Ð$50,€so€what€this€does,€this€gives€them€$500.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌÓ  Óà  àà ` àThe€concept€of€increasing€a€penalty€for€repeat€offenses€is€clearly€punitive€and€notÐ Ð  Ðrelated€to€a€remedial€purpose€of€covering€administrative€expenses.€€In€fact,€other€than€simplyÐ ¼  Ðproviding€figures€for€the€total€revenues€and€expenditures€of€the€City€Court€Clerk,€there€is€noÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€of€how€the€fines€imposed€by€the€City€Judge€are€to€cover€the€administrative€expensesÐ ”ä Ðincident€to€the€correction€of€municipal€violations.€€Fines€imposed€by€the€City€OrdinanceÐ €Ð Ðprohibiting€reckless€driving€are€intended€as€punishment€and€as€a€deterrent,€and€not€as€someÐ l¼ Ðremedial€measure€needed€to€make€the€city€whole.€€The€public€at€large,€and€not€the€city,€is€theÐ X ¨ Ðintended€beneficiary€of€the€ordinance,€as€it€is€with€the€stateððs€criminal€statutes.€€Ð D!” ÐÓ£%ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€majority€holds€Chattanooga€City€Code€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡•)#Ô€1„8,€facially€and€as€applied,€does€notÐ #l! Ðviolate€Article€VI,€Section€14,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€thus€allowing€a€city€judge€to€imposeÐ $X" Ða€ð ðmonetary€penaltyðð€of€greater€than€$50€for€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance.€€The€majority€admitsÐ ô$D # Ðthat€ð ðwere€we€free€to€ððwrite€on€a€clean€slate,ðð€we€might€be€inclined€to€hold€that€the€ððpenalty€andÐ à%0!$ Ðforfeitureðð€mentioned€in€Chattanooga€City€Ordinance€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡É+#Ô€1„8€is,€in€fact,€a€fine€of€the€type€contemplatedÐ Ì&"% Ðby€Article€VI,€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡d,#Ô€14,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€The€majority,€instead,€feels€constrained€byÐ ¸'#& Ðprecedent,€and€in€particular,€by€òòOððDell€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€388€S.W.2d€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964)ò òÐ ¤(ô#' Ðó óand€òòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€Knoxville€and€Davidson€Countyóó,€No.€M1999„01130„Ð )à$( ÐCOA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€798657€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€22,€2000)€(application€for€permission€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðappeal€filed€with€the€Supreme€Court).€€It€seems€clear€that€the€fine€of€$300.00€imposed€by€a€CityÐ h+¸&* ÐCourt€Judge€sitting€without€a€jury€is€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Nevertheless,€theÐ ° Ðmajority€suggests€that:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]here€is€ample€precedent€that€penalties€imposed€by€municipalitiesÐ tÄ Ðfor€violations€of€their€ordinances€ð!ð€penalties€that€are€often€referred€toÐ `° Ðas€fines€ð!ð€are€actually€not€ð ðfinesðð€within€the€meaning€of€Article€VI,Ð L œ ÐÔ‡X¡XX X¡ÔððÔ#† X¡XXX¡Ð0#Ô€14.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌThe€majority€is€not€without€precedent.€€However,€the€majorityððs€reliance€on€òòOððDellóó€and€òòBarrettóó,€twoÐ  ` Ðdecisions€from€this€Court,€is€misplaced,€as€hereinafter€discussed.Ð ü L  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€has€expressed€the€preference€for€substance€over€form€whenÐ Ô$  Ðdetermining€when€a€person€is€entitled€to€the€protections€afforded€to€them€by€the€Tennessee€andÐ À  ÐUnited€States€Constitutions.€à8  àà8hÈÈàЬü hphp ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIneluctable€logic€leads€to€the€conclusion€that€the€constitutionalÐ „Ô  Ðprotection€against€double€jeopardy,€as€is€the€case€with€the€right€ofÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€and€the€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€is€applicable€toÐ \¬ Ðall€proceedings,€irrespective€of€whether€they€are€denominatedÐ H˜ Ðcriminal€or€civil,€if€the€outcome€may€be€deprivation€of€liberty€of€theÐ 4„ Ðperson.€.€.€òòPrecious€constitutional€rights€cannot€be€diminished€orÐ  p Ðwhittled€away€by€the€device€of€changing€names€of€tribunals€orÐ  \ Ðmodifying€the€nomenclature€of€legal€proceedings.€€The€test€must€beÐ øH Ðthe€nature€and€the€essence€of€the€proceeding€rather€than€its€titleóó.Ð ä4 Ð(Emphasis€supplied).€ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€503€S.W.2d€185,€186„187€(Tenn.€1973)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Dickersonóó,€168Ð ¨ø ÐF.Supp.€899€(D.C.€1958));€see€also€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€940€S.W.2d€567,€570€(Tenn.€1997)€(holding€thatÐ ”ä Ðð ðour€constitution€is€concerned€with€substance€rather€than€formðð).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€context,€it€is€not€determinative€whether€€the€$300.00€imposed€on€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðis€called€a€fine,€monetary€penalty,€or€anything€else.€€In€fact,€the€City€and€State€use€the€wordsÐ D!” Ðinterchangeably.€€Most€notably,€while€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€and€Chattanooga€City€Code€ðð€1„8(a)€referÐ 0"€  Ðto€a€ð ðmonetary€penalty€and€forfeitureðð€not€to€exceed€$500.00,€the€section€of€the€City€Code€underÐ #l! Ðwhich€the€defendant€was€found€guilty,€ðð€24„13,€states€that€a€defendant€ð ðshall€be€punished€.€.€.€by€aÐ $X" Ðfine.ðð€€€Instead€of€focusing€on€the€choice€of€words€used,€the€court€must€look€at€the€purpose€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðfine/penalty€and€whether€such€purpose€was€meant€to€be€encompassed€by€the€word€ð ðfineðð€as€used€inÐ à%0!$ ÐArticle€VI,€Section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€word€ð ðfineðð€is€not€defined€by€the€Constitution,€nor€is€there€any€mention€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwords€ð ðcriminalðð€or€ð ðcivilðð€as€a€qualification€for€the€word€ð ðfine.ðð€Tennessee€Courts€have€made€a€fewÐ )à$( Ðattempts€at€discerning€what€is€encompassed€by€the€term€ð ðfineðð€as€used€in€the€Constitution.€€InÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòPoindexter€v.€Stateóó,€137€Tenn.€386,€193€S.W.€126€(1917),€the€Court€held€that€a€statute€requiring€aÐ h+¸&* Ðperson€abandoning€a€child€to€post€a€bond€of€greater€than€$50.00€was€not€unconstitutional€becauseÐ ° Ðthe€penalty€imposed€by€the€statute€was€not€a€fine€in€the€sense€of€the€constitutional€provision.€€TheÐ œì ÐCourt€then€attempted€to€articulate€the€difference€between€this€ð ðpenaltyðð€and€a€ð ðfineðð:Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àWhile€a€fine€is€always€a€penalty,€a€penalty€is€not€always€a€fine.€€A€penalty€whenÐ `° Ðrecovered€ordinarily€goes€to€the€statutory€beneficiaries€while€a€fine€goes€to€the€state.ÐL œ` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€fine€is€proportioned€to€the€gravity€of€the€offense€punished,€and€theÐ $ t Ðfinancial€ability€of€a€defendant€to€pay€is€not€ordinarily€considered.Ð  ` ÐThe€penalty€or€bond€exacted€of€a€delinquent€father€under€this€act€isÐ ü L  Ðmeasured€by€his€ability€to€pay€and€the€flagrancy€of€his€offense€is€notÐ è 8  Ðtaken€into€account.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌòòPoindexteróó,€137€Tenn.€392„393,€193€S.W.€at€128€(internal€citations€omitted)Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€has€also€held€that€a€statute€(now€repealed)€authorizing€a€judgeÐ „Ô  Ðto€fix€payments€in€excess€of€$50.00€where€a€husband€has€failed€to€support€his€wife€did€not€violateÐ pÀ Ðthe€Constitution€because€the€payments€provided€for€were€not€construed€as€punishment.€€òòAbbott€v.Ð \¬ ÐStateóó,€190€Tenn.€702,€231€S.W.2d€355€(1950).Ð H˜ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThen,€in€òòOððDell€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€this€Court€found€to€be€constitutional€a€cityÐ  p Ðordinance€providing€for€a€penalty€of€$100.00€for€the€operation€of€a€vehicle€while€under€the€influenceÐ  \ Ðof€an€intoxicant.€€The€Court€relied€on€òòPoindexteróó€in€holding€that€the€proceeding€for€violation€of€a€cityÐ øH Ðordinance€was€a€civil€action€and€such€a€penalty€was€not€a€fine€within€the€meaning€of€Article€VI,Ð ä4 ÐSection€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòOððDellóó€at€388€S.W.2d€150,€152.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€the€reasoning€of€this€Court€€in€òòOððDellóó€is€unfavorable€to€the€defendantððsÐ ¨ø Ðposition,€the€result€it€reached€is€not€incompatible.€€The€ordinance€at€issue€in€òòOððDellóó€ð ðprovided€forÐ ”ä Ða€penalty€of€not€more€nor€less€than€$100.00ðð€€388€S.W.2d€at€152.€€The€imposition€of€a€statutorilyÐ €Ð Ðspecified€fine,€allowing€no€judicial€discretion,€is€one€of€the€recognized€exceptions€to€the€rule€of€juryÐ l¼ Ðimposition€of€fines.€€òòState€v.€Martinóó.€€Accordingly,€the€court€did€not€need€to€reach€the€issue€ofÐ X ¨ Ðwhether€the€proceeding€was€civil€or€criminal,€and€its€discussion€of€the€same€should€properly€beÐ D!” Ðconsidered€òòobiter€dictumóó.€€Moreover,€the€reasoning€in€òòOððDellóó€is€inconsistent€with€several€of€the€casesÐ 0"€  Ðdecided€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€includingòòò ò€ó óOððHaver€v.€Montgomeryóó,€120€Tenn.€448,€111Ð #l! ÐS.W.€449€(1908)€and€òòMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€Milesóó,€524Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€656€(Tenn.€1975).Ð ô$D # Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€of€municipal€ordinance€violationsÐ Ì&"% Ðinòò€Milesóó€when€it€was€faced€with€the€question€of€whether€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€the€UnitedÐ ¸'#& ÐStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€applied€to€proceedings€for€the€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinanceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhere€the€penalty€imposed€is€a€fine€and€not€a€deprivation€of€liberty.€€The€Metropolitan€Government,Ð )à$( Ðrelying€on€òòOððDellóó€and€òòOððHaveróó,€argued€that€the€protection€did€not€apply€because€the€proceeding€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ða€civil€action€and€not€a€criminal€prosecution.€€The€Court€held€that€the€proceeding€for€the€violationÐ h+¸&* Ðof€a€municipal€ordinance€was€criminal€òòin€substanceóó,€in€that€it€seeks€to€punish€the€defendant.€òòMilesóó,Ð ° Ð524€S.W.2d€at€660.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€Court€distinguished€between€a€ð ðfineðð€and€a€ð ðcivil€penaltyðð€as€follows:ÐtÄ` (#` (# Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#à[I]n€order€for€an€alleged€ððcivilðð€action€to€be€considered€beyond€the€protectionÐ L œ Ðof€the€double€jeopardy€clause€it€was€necessary€that€such€action€be€ððremedialÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€natureðð€and€not€intended€to€have€the€effect€of€ððinflicting€punishmentðð€uponÐ $ t Ðthe€citizen€in€order€to€vindicate€public€justice.€.€.€.Ð `¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ à*€*€*€*€*Ð è 8  ÐÓµQÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` x` xàWe,€therefore,€hold€that€a€proceeding€in€a€municipal€court€forÐ À  Ðthe€imposition€of€a€fine€upon€a€person€for€allegedly€violatingÐ ¬ü  Ða€city€ordinance€is€criminal€rather€than€civil€in€substance,€inÐ ˜è  Ðthat,€it€seeks€punishment€to€vindicate€public€justice€and,Ð „Ô  Ðtherefore,€constitutes€jeopardy€under€the€double€jeopardyÐ pÀ Ðclauses€of€the€Tennessee€and€Federal€Constitutions€.€.€.Ð\¬¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòò òó óóó524€S.W.2d€at€660.Ð 4„ Ðòòò òà  àÌà  àà ` àó óMilesóó€is€of€particular€importance€as€it€focuses€on€the€fact€that€it€is€a€criminal€actionÐ X Ðin€substance€and€purpose,€and€òòò òó óóóheld€that€the€imposition€of€a€fine/penalty€by€the€city€court€for€theÐ ôD Ðviolation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€constitutes€punishment€that€triggers€certain€constitutionalÐ à0 Ðprotections,€which€in€that€case€was€the€protection€against€double€jeopardy.€€The€Court€had€previouslyÐ Ì Ðextended€this€protection€to€juvenile€court€cases€which€were€considered€to€be€ð ðcivil€actionsðð€on€theÐ ¸ Ðgrounds€that€such€proceedings€subjected€the€defendant€to€punishment.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€503€S.W.2dÐ ¤ô Ð185€(Tenn.€1973).€Additionally,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòWaller€v.€Floridaóó,€held€that€theÐ à Ðprotection€against€double€jeopardy€applies€to€procedures€for€the€violation€of€municipal€ordinances.€Ð |Ì Ð397€U.S.€387,€90€S.Ct.€1184€(1970).€€€To€reach€its€decisions€in€òòJacksonóó€and€òòMilesóó,€the€CourtÐ h¸ Ðrecognized€the€punitive€nature€of€these€so„called€ð ðcivilðð€actions€and€this€resulted€in€an€outcomeÐ T ¤ Ðinconsistent€with€that€in€òòOððDellóó.Ð @! Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€the€same€year€that€the€Court€decided€òòMilesóó,€it€also€held€that€proceedings€in€cityÐ #h! Ðcourt€are€primarily€civil€in€nature€in€deciding€who€serves€as€the€clerk€of€the€General€Sessions€CourtÐ $T" Ðof€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.€€òòMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€CountyÐ ð$@ # Ðv.€Allenóó,€529€S.W.2d€699€(Tenn.€1975).€It€elaborated:Ð Ü%,!$ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àThey€are€in€the€nature€of€an€action€for€debt.€€They€are€not€criminal€prosecutions,€butÐ ´'#& Ðare€merely€penal€actions€having€as€their€object€the€vindication€of€domesticÐ  (ð#' Ðregulations.€€They€are€governed€by€rules€in€civil€cases€including€the€right€to€retrial€onÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðappeal€to€the€circuit€court€where€the€matter€will€be€heard€de€novo.Ðx*È%)` (#` (# ÐÐ d+´&* Ð529€S.W.2d€at€707€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àIn€òòAllenóó,€the€Court€modified€some€of€their€prior€language€from€òòMilesóó,€stating€that€theÐ œì Ðlanguage€was€ð ðover€broadðð€and€that€òòOððHaveróó€and€òòOððDellóó€were€òònotóó€overruled€by€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó.€Ð ˆØ ÐòòAllenóó,€529€Ô‡X¡XX X¡ÔS.W.2dÔ#† X¡XXX¡Ù^#Ô€at€706„707.€€Instead,€the€Court€concluded€that€there€was€no€conflict€between€theÐ tÄ ÐòòMiles„Jacksonóó€holding€and€that€of€òòOððHaveróó€and€òòOððDellóó.€€òòId.óó€€€It€is€important€to€note€that€while€theÐ `° ÐCourt€modified€some€of€its€language€in€òòMilesóó,€the€critical€essence€of€òòMilesóó€remains,€that€someÐ L œ Ðactions€in€the€city€court€are€criminal€in€substance€and€trigger€constitutional€protections.€€MostÐ 8 ˆ Ðimportantly,€òòMilesóó€has€not€been€overruled!Ð $ t Ðòòò òó óóóà  àÌà  àà ` àIn€the€most€recent€case€on€the€issue€of€municipal€violations,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ ü L  ÐCourt€held€that€for€the€purposes€of€procedure€and€appeal,€proceedings€for€the€violation€of€aÐ è 8  Ðmunicipal€offence€was€civil€in€nature,€entitling€the€defendant€to€jury€trial€on€appeal€to€circuit€court.€Ð Ô$  ÐòòChattanooga€v.€Myersóó,€787€S.W.2d€921€(Tenn.€1990).€€The€Court€reviewed€the€case€law€dating€backÐ À  Ðto€òòMeaher€v.€Mayor€and€Aldermen€of€Chattanoogaóó,€38€Tenn.€75€(1858),€which€held€that€debt€is€theÐ ¬ü  Ðproper€action€for€the€violation€of€certain€municipal€ordinances.€€Without€overruling€any€prior€cases,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€Court€concluded€that:Ð „Ô  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€summary,€for€130€years€proceedings€to€recover€fines€for€the€violation€of€municipalÐ \¬ Ðordinances€have€been€considered€civil€òòfor€the€purposes€of€procedure€and€appealóó,Ð H˜ Ðalthough€the€principals€of€double€jeopardy€have€recently€been€determined€to€applyÐ 4„ Ðin€such€cases.€€The€basis€of€the€cases,€accepted€in€Allen„Briggs,€is€that€an€appeal€toÐ  p Ðcircuit€court€of€a€judgment€of€a€municipal€court„„even€when€the€defendant€is€theÐ  \ Ðappellant„„is€an€appeal€in€a€civil€action€brought€by€the€municipality€to€recover€aÐ øH Ðð ðdebt.ðð€(Emphasis€added).Ðä4` (#` (# ÐÌòòMyersóó,€787€S.W.2d€at€928€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€Court€in€òòMyersóó€cited€extensively€from€òòOððHaver€v.€Montgomeryóó,€120€Tenn.€448,Ð ”ä Ð111€S.W.€449€(1908),€a€leading€case€on€the€question€of€whether€proceedings€for€the€violation€ofÐ €Ð Ðmunicipal€ordinances€are€civil€or€criminal.€€In€òòOððHaveróó,€the€Court€expressly€stated€that€such€actionsÐ l¼ Ðhave€characteristics€of€both€civil€and€criminal€proceedings,€and€held€that€a€defendant€may€beÐ X ¨ Ðimprisoned€by€a€municipality€for€nonpayment€of€a€fine.€€111€S.W.€at€451.€€While€decided€in€1908,Ð D!” Ðthe€language€of€òòOððHaveróó€best€describes€the€nature€of€these€proceedings€as€they€occur€today.Ð 0"€  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€truth,€when€a€violator€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€arrested€and€brought€before€theÐ $X" Ðmunicipal€court,€he€is€tried€for€an€offense€committed€against€the€laws€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðcorporation;€but,€in€the€absence€of€apt€legislation€to€the€contrary,€his€punishment€isÐ à%0!$ Ðin€the€form€of€the€assessment€of€a€penalty.€€The€practice€partakes€of€both€a€civil€andÐ Ì&"% Ðcriminal€character.€€He€is€arrested€on€warrant€as€in€criminal€cases,€and€if€found€guiltyÐ ¸'#& Ða€judgment€is€entered€against€him€as€for€a€fine,€and€on€failure€to€pay€the€amountÐ ¤(ô#' Ðassessed€against€him€he€may€be€held€in€custody€until€he€pays€or€secures€it,€or€be€putÐ )à$( Ðat€labor€to€pay€it.€€If€dissatisfied€with€the€judgment€he€may€appeal,€as€in€civil€cases,Ð |*Ì%) Ðupon€complying€with€the€law€or€statute€applicable,€and€may€have€a€retrial€in€theÐ h+¸&* Ðcircuit€court,€where€the€matter€will€be€heard€de€novo,€the€rules€of€practice€applicableÐ ° Ðto€civil€cases€applying€in€such€trial;€but€at€last€the€purpose€of€the€action€isÐ œì Ðpunishment.€€òòSo€it€is€perceived€the€action€is€partly€criminal€and€partly€civil;€aÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€action€in€substance€and€purpose,€and€partly€civil€and€partly€criminal€in€theÐ tÄ Ðpractice€governing€it.€.€.€óóÐ`°` (#` (# ÐÌòòOððHaveróó,€11€S.W.€at€451€(emphasis€added).€€€òòOððHaveróó€also€dispelled€the€legal€fiction€of€consideringÐ 8 ˆ Ðactions€brought€for€violation€of€municipal€ordinances€as€actions€for€debt.Ð $ t Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€fundamental€error€in€this€reasoning,€as€applied€to€the€present€case,€is€that€theÐ ü L  Ðfacts€show€no€debt.€€The€city€did€not€perform€the€work€at€all,€and€acquired€no€debtÐ è 8  Ðagainst€the€defendant€.€.€.€The€arrest€of€the€defendant€was€predicated,€not€upon€theÐ Ô$  Ðfact€that€he€owed€the€city€a€debt,€but€that€in€refusing€to€lay€the€sidewalk€he€hadÐ À  Ðviolated€an€ordinance,€and€had€thereby€become€guilty€of€committing€a€misdemeanorÐ ¬ü  Ðagainst€the€laws€of€the€corporation.€.€.Иè ` (#` (# ÐÌòòId.óó€at€453.Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€òòMyersóó€Court€attempted€to€reconcile€all€the€past€cases€on€the€issue,€includingÐ H˜ ÐòòOððDellóó,€and€in€the€process,€refused€to€acknowledge€the€blatant€inconsistencies€and€OrwellianÐ 4„ Ðð ðdoublespeakðð€that€is€prevalent€throughout€the€existing€case€law.€€First,€the€Court€likens€the€actionÐ  p Ðto€an€action€for€debt,€in€order€to€provide€for€a€civil€appeal.€€òòMyersóó,€787€S.W.2d€at€928.€€Yet€bothÐ  \ ÐòòOððDellóó€and€òòOððHaveróó€have€held€that€such€action€is€not€one€for€a€debt,€allowing€the€municipality€toÐ øH Ðimprison€a€person€for€failure€to€pay€the€fine/penalty€without€running€afoul€of€the€United€States€andÐ ä4 ÐTennessee€Constitutions€that€prohibit€imprisonment€for€failure€to€pay€a€debt.€€òòOððDellóó,€388€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€152;€òòOððHaveróó,€111€S.W.€at€453.Ð ¼  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àNext,€the€òòMyersò ò€ó óóóCourt€concludes€that€the€fine/penalty€is€ð ðcivil€for€the€purposes€ofÐ ”ä Ðprocedure€and€appeal,ðð€but€recognizes€that€some€ð ðpenaltiesðð€may€be€considered€punishment€for€theÐ €Ð Ðlimited€purpose€of€double€jeopardy€analysis.€€òòMyersóó,€at€928.€Ð l¼ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€the€Court€in€òòMyersóó€relied€on€the€language€in€òòAllenóó,€to€wit:Ð D!” Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àProcedurally,€cases€involving€violation€of€city€ordinances€continue€to€be€civil€inÐ #l! Ðnature.€€They€are€in€the€nature€of€an€action€for€debt.€€They€are€not€criminalÐ $X" Ðprosecutions,€but€are€merely€penal€actions€having€as€their€object€the€vindication€ofÐ ô$D # Ðdomestic€regulations.€€They€are€governed€by€rules€in€civil€cases€including€the€rightÐ à%0!$ Ðto€retrial€on€appeal€to€the€circuit€court€where€the€matter€will€be€heard€de€novo.ÐÌ&"%` (#` (# ÐÌòòMyersóó,€787€S.W.2d€at€922€(quotingòòò ò€ó óAllenóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€707).€€However,€the€Court€took€a€differentÐ ¤(ô#' Ðview€in€òòMilesóó,€which€was€decided€just€prior€to€òòAllenóó.€€Ð )à$( Ðà8  àà0` Ð Ð àà0¸ ` Ð ` Ð àÐ ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àThe€Court€in€OððHaver€best€summarized€the€nature€of€a€proceeding€for€violation€ofÐ h+¸&* Ða€municipal€ordinance€when€it€said€that€it€is€a€criminal€action€in€substance€and€purpose,€while€beingÐ ° Ðpartly€criminal€and€partly€civil€in€the€practice€of€governing€it.òò€€OððHaveróó,€111€S.W.€at€451.Ð œì Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAs€stated€above,€the€Cityððs€and€the€majorityððs€reliance€on€òòOððDellóó€is€misplaced.€€First,Ð tÄ Ðas€already€noted,€the€ordinance€imposed€a€specific€fine€and€did€not€leave€the€judge€with€anyÐ `° Ðdiscretion.€€Second,€this€language€in€òòOððDellóó€regarding€the€distinction€between€a€fine€and€a€penaltyÐ L œ Ðwhile€dicta€to€that€holding,€is€also€contrary€to€the€later€case€ofòò€Milesóó.€The€majority€also€relies€uponÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyóó,€No.€€M1999„01130„COA„Ð $ t ÐR3„CV,€2000€WL€798657€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€22,€2000).€€In€that€case€Frank€Barrett€violated€a€CityÐ  ` Ðordinance€regarding€the€repair€of€a€building€without€a€permit,€and€was€fined€$500.00€plus€costs€onÐ ü L  Ðeach€of€five€civil€warrants€that€had€been€issued.€€This€Court€held€that€the€ð ðfineðð€or€ð ðpenaltyðð€resultingÐ è 8  Ðfrom€the€violation€was€in€the€nature€of€a€civil€debt€that€was€not€covered€by€Tennessee€Constitution,Ð Ô$  ÐArticle€VI,€Section€14.€€òòóóThe€Court€relied€heavily€on€òòMyersò ò€ó óóófor€the€idea€it€was€an€action€for€a€debt.€Ð À  ÐHowever,€while€òòMyersóó€stressed€the€fact€that€it€considered€the€action€civil€for€purposes€of€procedureÐ ¬ü  Ðand€appeal,€it€also€recognized€the€cases€of€òòOððHaveróó€and€òòMilesóó€that€held€that€such€actions€wereÐ ˜è  Ðcriminal€in€substance.€€€€€à  àÐ „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€òòBarrettóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Court€also€pointed€out€that€the€appellant€could€have€easily€obtained€theÐ \¬ Ðjury€trial€he€desired€ð ðby€simply€appealing€the€judgment€of€the€general€sessions€court€and€demandingÐ H˜ Ða€jury€pursuant€to€Article€I,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€However,€I€know€of€no€authorityÐ 4„ Ðthat€requires€a€person€to€go€through€the€time€and€expense€of€an€appeal€in€order€to€receive€the€benefitÐ  p Ðof€her€constitutional€rights.€€Indeed,€all€judges€take€an€oath€to€uphold€the€Constitutions€and€applyÐ  \ Ðtheir€requirements€even„handedly€at€whatever€station€the€judge€operates.Ô#† ¼Oý»X X¡4#ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔÐ øH Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àAs€aptly€stated€in€òòJackson€v.€Stateóó,€the€test€must€be€the€nature€and€the€essence€of€theÐ Ð  Ðproceeding€rather€than€its€title.€€The€constitutional€right€not€to€be€fined€more€than€$50.00€without€aÐ ¼  Ðjury€must€not€depend€on€the€venue€or€title€of€the€proceeding.€€If€the€fine€cannot€be€said€to€serve€aÐ ¨ø Ðsolely€remedial€purpose,€but€rather€can€only€be€explained€as€also€serving€either€retributive€orÐ ”ä Ðdeterrent€purposes,€it€is€punishment€and€is€subject€to€the€constitutional€limitation€of€Article€VI,Ð €Ð ÐSection€14.€€It€is€beyond€comprehension€to€suggest€that€a€defendant€in€the€municipal€setting€shouldÐ l¼ Ðnot€be€granted€constitutional€protections€granted€to€defendants€charged€with€the€same€or€similar€Ð X ¨ Ðcrimes€under€the€State€laws.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€noted,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€extended€constitutional€protectionsÐ #l! Ðnormally€associated€with€criminal€proceedings€to€those€which€have€been€considered€civil,€i.e.,€Ð $X" ÐòòWaller.€€óóThat€Court,€has€also€in€òòAustin€v.€United€Statesóó,€extended€the€constitutional€protectionÐ ° Ðagainst€excessive€fines€to€certain€civil€penalties.€€509€U.S.€602,€113€S.Ct.€2801€(1993).€€As€the€U.S.Ð œì ÐSupreme€Court€recognized,€ð ðthe€notion€of€punishment€.€.€.€cuts€across€the€division€between€the€civilÐ ˆØ Ðand€criminal€law,ðð€509€U.S.€at€610,€113€S.Ct.€at€2805,€and€that€for€the€purposes€of€the€excessiveÐ tÄ Ðfines€clause,€ð ða€civil€sanction€that€cannot€be€said€solely€to€serve€a€remedial€purpose,€but€rather€canÐ `° Ðonly€be€explained€as€also€serving€either€retributive€or€deterrent€purposes,€is€punishment.ðð€€òòò òó óóó509€U.S.Ð L œ Ðat€621,€113€S.Ct.€2812.€€Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€record€demonstrates€that€over€90€city€ordinances€enacted€by€the€City€ofÐ  ` ÐChattanooga€are€the€same€as,€or€substantially€similar€to,€state€statutes€dealing€with€motor€vehiclesÐ ü L  Ðand€traffic€regulation.€€The€Tennessee€Code€provides€that€a€city€may€enact€ordinances€to€enforce€theÐ è 8  Ðrules€of€the€road€and€that€certain€types€of€driving€violations€may€be€tried€in€the€General€SessionsÐ Ô$  ÐCourt€of€Hamilton€County.€€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„107€and€55„10„308.€€Thus€a€person€conceivably€may€endÐ À  Ðup€in€either€a€state€court€or€city€court€for€the€commission€of€the€same€offense.€€Since€1993,€there€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€no€assistant€district€attorney€or€investigator€assigned€to€the€City€Court€of€Chattanooga.€€Instead,Ð ˜è  Ðthe€police€officers€are€left€with€the€complete€discretion€to€either€cite€a€person€to€City€Court€or€to€haveÐ „Ô  Ðthem€arrested€and€sent€to€the€Hamilton€County€jail€for€the€same€violation€based€upon€the€same€facts.€Ð pÀ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThis€system€raises€several€problems€regarding€equal€protection.€€While€peopleÐ H˜ Ðbrought€before€the€City€Court€may€face€a€lesser€penalty,€they€are€also€denied€significant€rights€thatÐ 4„ Ðthey€would€be€entitled€to€in€State€Court.€€For€example,€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„205€defines€reckless€drivingÐ  p Ðand€makes€this€offense€a€Class€B€misdemeanor,€which€carries€with€it€a€fine€of€up€to€$500.00€andÐ  \ Ðimprisonment€up€to€six€months.€€Chattanooga€City€Code€defines€reckless€driving€the€same€way,€andÐ øH Ðsubjects€a€person€to€a€fine€of€up€to€$50.00,€and€if€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€were€constitutional,€a€fine€ofÐ ä4 Ðup€to€$500.00,€but€with€no€imprisonment.€€As€the€Trial€Judge€in€this€case€in€his€Order€points€out:€Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà ¸ àProsecutorial€discretion€in€this€situation€rests€not€with€the€District€AttorneyÐ ¨ø ÐGeneral,€but€with€police€officers€and€others,€who€may€arrest€with€or€without€aÐ ”ä Ðwarrant€depending€on€the€circumstances,€and€subsequently€bring€the€offender€to€CityÐ €Ð ÐCourt€for€an€ordinance€violation€or€General€Sessions€Court€for€a€state€law€violation.Ðl¼` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àMunicipal€ordinances€that€duplicate€state€statutes,€that€are€A,Ð D!” ÐB,€or€C€misdemeanors€are€penal€in€nature€and€require€the€protectionÐ 0"€  Ðof€an€accusedððs€constitutional€rights.€Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌûÿÿdûà  àà ` àüÿÿdüIt€is€beyond€dispute€that€city€ordinances€that€are€identical€or€substantially€similar€toÐ ô$D # Ðstate€laws€are€penal€in€nature,€as€are€any€ordinances€that€seek€more€than€mere€remedial€relief.€Ð à%0!$ ÐProceedings€in€city€court€for€the€violation€of€any€such€ordinances,€in€my€view€must€carry€with€it€theÐ Ì&"% Ðsame€constitutional€protections€as€provided€in€state€court€for€a€person€convicted€of€the€state€offense,Ð ¸'#& Ðincluding€the€limitation€on€the€amount€a€judge€may€fine€the€defendant.€€Accordingly,€it€is€my€opinionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€City€Code€Section€ðð€1„8€is€unconstitutional€as€it€allows€the€City€Judge€to€impose€a€fine€in€excessÐ )à$( Ðof€$50.00€without€the€benefit€of€a€jury,€in€contravention€of€Article€VI,€Section€14€of€the€TennesseeÐ |*Ì%) ÐConstitution.€€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€majority€holds€that€T.C.A.€ðððð€6„54„306€and€6„54„308€do€not€violate€equalÐ œì Ðprotection€as€there€is€a€rational€basis€for€this€classification.€€I€agree,€but€to€the€extent€€the€City€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðis€imposing€fines€of€greater€than€$50.00€in€a€punitive€manner€and€not€solely€for€remedial€purposes,Ð tÄ Ðthere€is€an€unconstitutional€application.€€The€majority€finds€a€rational€basis€for€the€delegation€ofÐ `° Ðauthority€to€enforce€certain€driving€offenses.€€I€agree€there€is€a€rational€basis€for€this€delegation.€Ð L œ ÐHowever,€as€stated,€such€delegation€is€unconstitutionally€applied€when€a€person€charged€under€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðmunicipal€ordinance€is€denied€the€protections€that€would€be€granted€to€one€charged€under€the€stateÐ $ t Ðstatute.€€The€arrangement€in€the€City€Court€is€contrary€to€the€stated€purposes€of€the€TennesseeÐ  ` ÐCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€which€states:Ð ü L  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#à(1)€Every€defendant€shall€be€punished€by€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€justly€deservedÐ Ô$  Ðin€relation€to€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€ÐÀ ` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€This€chapter€is€to€assure€fair€and€consistent€treatment€of€allÐ ˜è  Ðdefendants€by€eliminating€unjustified€disparity€in€sentencing€andÐ „Ô  Ðproviding€a€fair€sense€of€predictability€of€the€criminal€law€and€itsÐ pÀ Ðsanctions.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„102.Ð 4„ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€majorityððs€second€argument,€finds€thatòòò òó óóó€because€there€is€no€ð ðpolicy€and€practiceððÐ  \ Ðof€citing€all€traffic€violations€to€City€Court€the€statute€does€not€impinge€upon€the€authority€of€theÐ øH ÐAttorney€General.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€addressed€the€issue€of€the€extent€of€the€power€andÐ ä4 Ðdiscretion€held€by€the€district€attorney€general€in€òòRamsey€v.€Town€of€Oliver€Springsóó,€998€S.W.2d€207Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€The€Court€held€that€the€practice€in€that€case€violated€Article€VI,€ðð€5€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¼  ÐConstitution€by€impeding€the€constitutional€and€statutory€obligations€of€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ¨ø Ðfor€Anderson€County€to€discharge€the€duties€of€his€office.€€Ð ”ä Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€District€Attorney€General€and€only€the€District€Attorney€General€can€make€theÐ l¼ Ðdecision€whether€to€proceed€with€a€prosecution€for€an€offense€committed€within€hisÐ X ¨ Ðor€her€district.€.€.€ÐD!”` (#` (# ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€District€Attorney€General€is€answerable€to€no€superior€and€hasÐ #l! Ðvirtually€unbridled€discretion€in€determining€whether€to€prosecute€andÐ $X" Ðfor€what€offense.€€No€court€may€interfere€with€the€discretion€toÐ ô$D # Ðprosecute,€and€in€the€formulation€of€this€decision,€he€or€she€isÐ à%0!$ Ðanswerable€to€no€one.€.€.€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWere€it€otherwise,€prosecutorial€discretion€would€rest€not€with€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,€but€with€police€officers€who€may€arrestÐ )à$( Ðwith€or€without€a€warrant€depending€on€the€circumstances.€€This€is,Ð |*Ì%) Ðin€fact,€precisely€the€harm€created€by€the€policy€and€practiceÐ h+¸&* Ðemployed€by€the€Town€of€Oliver€Springs.€€Ð°` x` x ÐÌòòRamseyóó,€998€S.W.2d€at€209„210€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€majority€distinguishes€òòRamseyóó€on€the€grounds€that€here,€there€is€no€ð ðpolicy€andÐ `° Ðpracticeðð€of€citing€all€those€who€violate€state€traffic€laws€within€the€Cityððs€borders€to€the€city€courtÐ L œ Ðto€be€tried€for€violating€a€city€ordinance€in€those€cases€where€both€a€state€law€and€city€ordinance€areÐ 8 ˆ Ðimplicated.€€However,€any€discretion€vested€with€the€police€officers€as€to€whether€a€person€will€beÐ $ t Ðcharged€with€violating€a€municipal€ordinance€or€a€state€law€infringes€on€the€powers€of€the€DistrictÐ  ` ÐAttorney€General€and€subjects€citizens€to€unequal€treatment€as€explained€above.€Accordingly,€€whileÐ ü L  ÐT.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€may€be€facially€valid,€it€has€been€applied€in€an€unconstitutional€manner.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€all€of€these€reasons,€I€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€holdings,€and€the€state€of€theÐ À  Ðlaw€on€these€issues€cries€out€for€the€Supreme€Court€to€clear€up€the€confusion€resulting€from€theÐ ¬ü  Ðlanguage€in€òòAllen€óóand€òòMyersóó.€€Ô#† ¼Oý»X X¡¶ˆ#ÔÔ‡ X¡X» ¼OýÔÐ ˜è  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòòHerschel€Pickens€Franks,€J.Ð 4„ Ðóó