ÿWPCÂ$ ´â‰±ýìÆ©òX¿™Æߥ8BÅ2ÙJsû6٘뚓M¿23O”A««f¡:¼¶'ª8´ùåQ¡Ò<€•IóÖš¿}Ð *>!†Y¾ÞÆRúÔ>YýäèÐ[CsöÜZÝ^ßĨgM© ÚyÙÅ;¨…{ͯHÍHéöÀwé‚m@65¿´jöŠ*WÛ‰<ο]Î) ƈÉöAÅÆ“Ký Ê Aßå&3¨q"@9ÌL£šúÀM4ÕÌ1Ë Dy¦”$®øûÁ{^ô=:ÿol1ÅÅ¢òí“+A_/ÑÎZ‹eì¥ãiÙ`˜à[ žy!ZñíÊE\Ëw š˜OS"ê¥ø€6)3ëJHbˆ’È…4õêÞIœX‚$·ß°ÛS £C¼ÿ—¶f"Ä­^8¶½ì±1ç!@­i͇­B¶GZ!£¶´ÚQ<˜›‘YvÒ]ð&a­ì¢¼—ªÖ€pA®m!EµÄ7•µêUä±ì¬ét»jfõåìoçª3³¹Ý8Ê«æІÔýÀÐCs´EÚlz)g°ê¹(ìë)kò½•“8UÄXöÈ)¿^Ûo]W ÌbUý©*E÷<ÜR ©Æ.›„·ˆ÷'A<²,½±‘wEb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz 4‘ ÆÅ Æ‹ ÆQÆ 0DÝN!T#ŽwE&UN--{zƒaýýýýY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^b···································· 0ë¿¿¿¿ Bª ª 0¤Ç D3k! D-ž! 0KË!Ë! AS"Æi" 0¤/# 0DÓ# 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|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ *Ý ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAmong€the€provisions€that€municipalities€are€authorized€to€adopt€pursuant€to€this€section€is€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„Ð ° Ð205,€the€state€reckless€driving€statute.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó JÝ ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€4.1€of€the€Chattanooga€City€Charter€states€that€an€appeal€from€the€city€court€ð ðmay€be€taken€to€theÐ ° Ðcircuit€[criminal]€court€of€Hamilton€County.ðð€€(Brackets€in€original).€ „Ý ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðò òòòAllen„Briggsó óóóðð€is€a€reference€to€òòò òMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€Allen,ó óóó€529Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€699€(Tenn.€1975)€and€ò òòòBriggs€v.€City€of€Union€City,ó óóó€531€S.W.2d€106€(Tenn.€1975).€€The€latter€case€relied€solelyÐ vÆ Ðupon€ò òòòAllenó óóó€to€hold€that€a€defendant€convicted€of€a€violation€of€a€city€ordinance€is€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€upon€appeal€toÐ <Œ Ðthe€circuit€court.€€ò òòòBriggs,ó óóó€531€S.W.2d€at€107. Ý ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔChattanooga€City€Code€ðð€24„13€provides€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Any€person€who€drives€any€vehicle€in€wilful€or€wanton€disregard€for€the€safetyÐ 8ˆ Ðof€persons€or€property€is€guilty€of€reckless€driving.ÐüL` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€Every€person€convicted€of€reckless€driving€shall€be€punished€upon€the€firstÐ „Ô Ðconviction€by€a€fine€of€not€less€than€five€dollars€($5.00),€on€a€second€conviction€byÐ H ˜ Ða€fine€of€not€less€than€ten€dollars€($10.00),€on€a€third€conviction€by€a€fine€of€not€lessÐ  \ Ðthan€twenty„five€dollars€($25.00)€and€on€all€subsequent€convictions€by€a€fine€of€notÐ Ð  Ðless€than€fifty€dollars€($50.00).Д ä ` x` x ÐÌIt€should€be€noted€that€this€provision,€while€setting€òòminimumóó€fines€for€violations,€does€not€set€maximums.€(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  pÝ ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔT.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307(b)€enumerates€several€offenses€„„€driving€while€intoxicated,€failing€to€stop€after€a€trafficÐ ° Ðaccident,€driving€on€a€revoked€or€suspended€license,€and€drag€racing€„„€that€remain€solely€state€offenses.€ WÝ ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Town€of€Oliver€Springs€is€located€in€three€counties,€one€of€which€is€Anderson€County;€the€city€judge€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Town€sits€in€the€Ô_ÔRoaneÔ_Ô€County€part€of€Oliver€Springs. OÝ ƒR–’$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôê ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€further€note€that€the€injunction€was€improper€for€several€other€reasons.€€The€injunction€was€not€requestedÐ ° Ðby€either€party€in€this€case,€nor€was€the€City€provided€any€prior€notice€of€the€injunction€request.€€The€record€does€notÐ tÄ Ðcontain€any€ð ðverified€complaint,€affidavit€or€other€evidenceðð€to€demonstrate€ð ðimmediate€and€irreparable€injury,€loss€orÐ 8ˆ Ðdamageðð€to€a€party,€òòsee€óóTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.04(2);€in€fact,€the€injunction€is€apparently€aimed€at€preventing€injury€toÐ üL Ðð ðnumerous€individualsðð€who€are€unidentified.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€this€was€a€òòde€novoóó€hearing€on€the€charge€ofÐ À Ðreckless€driving.€€òòSee€óóT.C.A.€ðððð€27„5„102,€27„5„108(c)€(1980).€€An€injunction€prohibiting€the€City€from€collecting€finesÐ „Ô Ðor€penalties€from€other€ð ðnumerous€individualsðð€is€simply€beyond€the€scope€of€the€matter€before€the€court.- ù-(|G2–’$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€YL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô<àò»»Ô d(|3Íÿ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€YL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Íÿ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€YL»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€YL» »d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ó}»»»ÔÑ8€) XXdê» »d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îU{ Ó}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Ó}» îîU{ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€9,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X6 X»¼Ó}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ó}» XX6ó#ÔCITY€OF€CHATTANOOGAòò€óóv.€KEVIN€DAVISòòóóÔ‡X6 X»¼Ó}Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€225103€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€OCTOBER€31,€€2000Ð ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00664„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€violating€a€city€ordinance€proscribing€reckless€driving.€€AÐ xÈ  ÐChattanooga€city€court€judge€imposed€a€ð ðpenaltyðð€of€$300.€€On€his€appeal€to€the€Hamilton€CountyÐ d´ ÐCriminal€Court,€the€defendant€was€again€found€guilty,€but€this€time€his€punishment€was€set€at€$50.€Ð P  ÐThe€trial€court€went€further€and€permanently€enjoined€the€City€of€Chattanooga€from€ð ðimposing€orÐ <Œ Ðtrying€to€collectðð€fines€or€penalties€in€excess€of€$50€for€ordinance€violations.€€The€trial€court€alsoÐ (x Ðdeclared€the€state€statutes€and€city€ordinance€providing€for€the€assessment€of€penalties€up€to€$500Ð d Ðfor€such€violations€to€be€unconstitutional€and/or€invalid.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€ofÐ P Ða€$50€fine.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€court€declaring€the€statutes€and€city€ordinanceÐ ì< Ðunconstitutional€and/or€invalid.€We€further€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€court€enjoining€the€City€fromÐ Ø( Ðcollecting€fines€or€penalties€in€excess€of€$50.Ð Ä ÐÓ›ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€CourtÐ œì ÐAffirmed€in€Part;€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ó}» àX6g#ÔÔ‡X6 X.¼Ó}ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,Ð `° ÐÔ_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€óójoined€by€way€of€a€separate€concurring€opinion.€€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,€óófiled€a€dissentingÐ L œ Ðopinion.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌKenneth€O.€Fritz,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€City€of€Chattanooga.Ð #`" ÐÌJerry€H.€Summers,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Kevin€Davis.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€and€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ À&"& ÐGeneral,€for€the€intervening€party,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÓÚ ÓÌÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ó}» XX6 #ÔÔ‡X6 X»¼Ó}ÔÐ p*À%* ÐÐ  \+¬&+ý ÐÔ_ÔI.Ð ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€City€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€finding€three€statutory€provisions€and€a€cityÐ ˆØ Ðordinance€unconstitutional€and/or€invalid.€€The€text€of€the€statutes€and€city€ordinance€at€issueÐ tÄ Ðprovide,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð `° ÐÓÏ ÓÓ  ÓÌÓÓòòT.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306óóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓ ÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAll€home€rule€municipalities€are€empowered€to€set€maximumÐ  ` Ðpenalties€of€thirty€(30)€days€imprisonment€and/or€monetary€penaltiesÐ ü L  Ðand€forfeitures€up€to€five€hundred€dollars€($500),€or€both,€to€coverÐ è 8  Ðadministrative€expenses€incident€to€correction€of€municipalÐ Ô$  Ðviolations.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐòòÌÓhÓÓ  ÓT.C.A.€ðð€6„54„308óóÐ ˜è  ÐÓ'ÓÓÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Except€as€provided€in€ðð€6„54„306€for€home€rule€municipalities,€theÐ pÀ Ðlegislative€body€of€any€other€municipality€may€establish€a€monetaryÐ \¬ Ðpenalty€not€to€exceed€five€hundred€dollars€($500)€for€each€violationÐ H˜ Ðof€an€ordinance€of€such€municipality.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€The€authority€for€increased€monetary€penalties€for€ordinanceÐ  \ Ðviolations€provided€by€this€section€does€not€apply€to€ordinancesÐ øH Ðregulating€all€moving€traffic€violations.Ðä4` x` x ÐÌÓoÓòòÓ  ÓT.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307óóÐ ¼  ÐÓÓÓÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Any€incorporated€municipality€may€by€ordinance€adopt,€byÐ ”ä Ðreference,€any€of€the€appropriate€provisions€of€ðððð€55„8„101€„„€55„8„Ð €Ð Ð180,€55„10„101€„„€55„10„310,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€55„50„301,€55„50„302,€55„50„304,€55„Ð l¼ Ð50„305,€55„50„311,€and€55„50„312,€and€may€by€ordinance€provideÐ X ¨ Ðadditional€regulations€for€the€operation€of€vehicles€within€theÐ D!” Ðmunicipality,€which€shall€not€be€in€conflict€with€the€provisions€ofÐ 0"€  Ðsuch€sections....Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌÓcÓòòÓ  ÓChattanooga€City€Ordinance€ðð€1„8óóÐ ô$D # ÐÓ0ÓÓÓÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€Wherever€in€this€Code€or€in€any€ordinance€or€rule€of€regulationÐ Ì&"% Ðpromulgated€by€any€officer€of€the€city€under€authority€vested€in€himÐ ¸'#& Ðby€law€or€ordinance,€any€act€is€prohibited€or€is€declared€to€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðunlawful€or€a€misdemeanor,€or€the€doing€of€any€act€is€required,€or€theÐ ° Ðfailure€to€do€any€act€is€declared€to€be€unlawful,€the€violation€of€anyÐ œì Ðsuch€provision€of€this€Code€or€any€such€ordinance,€rule€or€regulationÐ ˆØ Ðshall€be€punished€by€a€monetary€penalty€and€forfeiture€not€exceedingÐ tÄ Ðfive€hundred€dollars€($500.00).Ô#†¼Ó}» XX6[ #ÔÔ‡X6 X»¼Ó}ÔÐ`°` x` x ÐÓ‡ÓÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ó}» XX6h#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X6 X»¼Ó}Ôà  àThe€defendant,€Kevin€Davis,€was€cited€for€reckless€driving€in€violation€of€a€city€ordinance.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р8 ˆ ÐDavis€appeared€in€Chattanooga€City€Court,€where€he€pled€guilty€to€the€charge€and€was€fined€$300.Ð $ t ÐDavis€appealed€to€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Court׃À ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(hereinafter€referred€to€as€ð ðthe€trial€courtðð)Ð  ` Ðand€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€arguing,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€imposition€of€a€fine€in€excess€of€$50Ð ü L  Ðviolates€Article€VI,€ðð€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ð[n]oÐ è 8  Ðfine€shall€be€laid€on€any€citizen€of€this€State€that€shall€exceed€fifty€dollars,€unless€it€shall€be€assessedÐ Ô$  Ðby€a€jury€of€his€peers....ðð€€In€addition€to€challenging€the€constitutionality€of€the€fine€itself,€DavisÐ À  Ðargued€below€and€contends€on€this€appeal€that€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306,€which€enables€home€ruleÐ ¬ü  Ðmunicipalities€such€as€Chattanooga€to€impose€penalties€up€to€$500€for€violations€of€municipalÐ ˜è  Ðordinances,€is€unconstitutional€in€that€it€ð ðdeprives€an€individual€of€due€process€of€law€andÐ „Ô  Ðfundamental€fairness.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€hearing€on€June€21,€1999,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€purporting€to€ð ðamendððÐ H˜ Ðthe€lower€courtððs€judgment€and€reducing€the€fine€to€$50.€€On€July€14,€1999,€the€trial€court€enteredÐ 4„ Ðanother€order,€enjoining€the€City€from€imposing€or€collecting€fines€or€penalties€in€excess€of€fiftyÐ  p Ðdollars.€€The€injunction€was€later€modified€to€allow€the€City€to€accept€payment€of€fines€imposedÐ  \ Ðbefore€the€date€of€the€injunction.€€The€City€moved€to€stay€the€injunction,€which€motion€was€denied.€Ð øH ÐThe€City€then€filed€an€application€for€an€extraordinary€appeal€with€this€Court€seeking€to€stay€theÐ ä4 Ðinjunction;€we€denied€the€Cityððs€application.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àDavis€filed€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€seeking€a€clarification€of€that€courtððs€decrees,€arguingÐ ¨ø Ðthat€although€the€trial€court€had€ð ðoverruled€the€defendantððs€constitutional€attack€on€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„Ð ”ä Ð306,ðð€the€court€had€ð ðexpressed€its€personal€belief€[at€the€June€21,€1999,€hearing]€that€said€statute€wasÐ €Ð Ðunconstitutional.ðð€€Davis€requested€another€hearing€so€the€trial€court€could€ð ðclarify€its€presentÐ ° Ðpositionðð€as€to€the€constitutionality€of€the€statute.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€entered€an€order€directing€the€Tennessee€Attorney€General€to€file€a€brief.€Ð tÄ ÐFollowing€a€hearing€in€which€the€Attorney€General€participated,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€inÐ `° Ðwhich€it€made€several€findings.€€First,€the€trial€court€reiterated€its€holding€that€Davis€should€be€finedÐ L œ Ð$50€for€violation€of€the€city€ordinance€against€reckless€driving.€€Second,€the€trial€court€declared€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€$300€fine€imposed€by€the€city€judge€violates€Article€VI,€ðð€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð $ t ÐThird,€the€trial€court€held€that€T.C.A.€ðððð€6„54„306€and€6„54„308€are€ð ðunconstitutional€in€theirÐ  ` Ðapplication.ðð€€The€court€stated€as€follows:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€is€no€reasonable€basis€or€criteria€by€which€[home€ruleÐ Ô$  Ðmunicipalities]€can€be€considered€as€a€class€different€from€otherÐ À  Ðmunicipalities€or€non„incorporated€areas€of€the€State.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðclassification€is€purely€arbitrary€and€therefore€unconstitutional€underÐ ˜è  Ðthe€equal€protection€clause[s]€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÐ „Ô  ÐConstitutions.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌFourth,€the€trial€court€declared€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€to€be€ð ðunconstitutional€in€its€applications,ððÐ H˜ Ðreasoning€that€ð ð[b]y€delegating€to€municipalities€the€authority€to€adopt€by€ordinances€state€statuesÐ 4„ Ð[sic]€without€requiring€them€to€impose€the€same€penal€provisions,€the€legislature€is€denying€citizensÐ  p Ðequal€treatment€under€the€law.ðð€€The€court€stated€that€this€legislative€grant€of€authority€was€alsoÐ  \ Ðunconstitutional€because€ð ð[p]rosecutorial€discretion€in€this€situation€rests€not€with€the€DistrictÐ øH ÐAttorney€General,€but€with€police€officers€and€others,€who€may€arrest€with€or€without€a€warrant...andÐ ä4 Ðsubsequently€bring€the€offender€to€City€Court€for€an€ordinance€violation€or€General€Sessions€CourtÐ Ð  Ðfor€a€state€law€violation.ðð€€Fifth,€the€trial€court€declared€City€Code€ðð€1„8€ð ðinvalid€as€enacted€becauseÐ ¼  Ðit€does€not€(1)€set€maximum€penalties€of€thirty€days,€(2)€does€not€state€that€it€is€to€coverÐ ¨ø Ðadministrative€provisions€incident€to€correction€of€municipal€violations,€and€(3)€states€that€violationsÐ ”ä Ðof€ordinances€òòshall€be€punishedóó€by€a€monetary€penalty.ðð€€(Emphasis€in€original).€€The€trial€courtÐ €Ð Ðreasoned€that€if€the€purpose€of€the€ordinance€is€to€punish€violators€of€municipal€ordinances,€then€theÐ l¼ Ðpenalty€imposed€is€a€criminal€penalty€and€cannot€be€considered€a€civil€penalty.€€Finally,€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€made€permanent€the€July€14,€1999,€injunction€enjoining€the€City€from€imposing€or€collectingÐ D!” Ðfines€or€monetary€penalties€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€City€appeals,€presenting€four€issues,€which€we€restate€as€follows:€€Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€holding€that€the€fine€imposed€by€the€cityÐ à%0!$ Ðjudge€violates€Article€VI,€ðð€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution?ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€T.C.A.€ðððð€6„54„306,€6„54„308,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðand€55„10„307€unconstitutional?Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€finding€Chattanooga€City€Code€ðð€1„8Ð ° Ðâ âinvalid?Ðœì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à4.€€Did€the€trial€court€lack€jurisdiction€to€issue€an€injunctionÐ tÄ Ðprecluding€the€City€Court€from€imposing€civil€penalties€in€excess€ofÐ `° Ðfifty€dollars?ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌThe€Attorney€General€joins€this€appeal€to€defend€the€constitutionality€of€the€challenged€statutes.€Ð $ t ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð ü L  ÐÓ„6ÓÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€a€threshold€review€of€the€role€of€the€trial€court€in€an€appeal€fromÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Chattanooga€City€Court.€€An€appeal€from€a€municipal€court€is€subject€to€the€same€terms€andÐ À  Ðrestrictions€as€an€appeal€from€general€sessions€court.€€T.C.A.€ðð€27„5„102€(1980).€€An€appeal€fromÐ ¬ü  Ðgeneral€sessions€court€is€heard€òòde€novoóó€in€the€circuit€court.€€T.C.A.€ðð€27„5„108(c)€(1980).€€As€theÐ ˜è  ÐSupreme€Court€has€stated:Ð „Ô  ÐÌòòà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDe€novoóó€appeals€from€the€general€sessions€courts€differ€from€otherÐ \¬ Ðtypes€of€appellate€proceedings.€€The€circuit€court€does€not€review€theÐ H˜ Ðgeneral€sessions€courtððs€decision.€€Rather,€it€provides€the€parties€anÐ 4„ Ðentirely€new€trial€as€if€no€other€trial€had€occurred€and€as€if€the€caseÐ  p Ðhad€originated€in€the€circuit€court.ò òòòÐ \` x` x ÐÌWare€v.€Meharry€Med.€College,ó óóó€898€S.W.2d€181,€184€(Tenn.€1995)€(citation€omitted).Ð à0 ÐÌà  àIn€conducting€a€òòde€novoóóhearing,€the€trial€court€was€not€charged€with€the€responsibility€ofÐ ¸ Ðreviewing€the€propriety€of€the€fine€imposed€by€the€city€court;€rather,€it€was€to€adjudicate€the€chargeÐ ¤ô Ðof€reckless€driving€as€if€the€hearing€in€the€city€court€had€never€happened.€€In€so€doing,€the€trial€courtÐ à Ðwas€presented€with€two€issues:€(1)€whether€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€violating€the€ordinance€and,Ð |Ì Ð(2)€if€so,€what€the€appropriate€penalty€should€be.€€It€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€Davisðð€guiltÐ h¸ Ðwas€at€issue€on€the€appeal€to€the€trial€court.€€Accordingly,€the€issue€before€the€trial€court€was€theÐ T ¤ Ðamount€of€the€penalty.€€The€trial€court€assessed€a€$50€fine.€€Because€this€amount€does€not€run€afoulÐ @! Ðof€Article€VI,€ðð€14,€the€issue€of€the€constitutionality€of€a€fine€in€excess€of€$50€is€not€squarelyÐ ,"|  Ðpresented€by€the€trial€courtððs€resolution€of€the€reckless€driving€charge€against€Davis.Ð #h! ÐÌà  àWhile€it€was€not€required€to€determine€the€correctness€of€the€city€courtððs€judgment,€the€trialÐ ð$@ # Ðcourt€elected€to€do€so.€€This€arguably€calls€into€play€the€principle€that€a€court€should€not€reach€aÐ Ü%,!$ Ðconstitutional€questions€unless€it€is€absolutely€necessary.€€òòSee€ò òOwens€v.€State,ó óóó€908€S.W.2d€923,€926Ð È&"% Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€However,€in€this€case,€the€trial€courtððs€assessment€of€a€$50€fine€stems€from€itsÐ ´'#& Ðdetermination€that€any€fine€above€that€amount€would€be€unconstitutional.€€The€trial€court€issued€anÐ  (ð#' Ðinjunction€against€the€City€because€of€this€finding.€€We€therefore€find€it€necessary€to€resolve€whetherÐ Œ)Ü$( Ða€fine€in€excess€of€$50€imposed€for€a€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€violates€Article€VI,€ðð€14.Ð x*È%) ÐÐ d+´&* Ðà  àAs€we€have€previously€stated,€Article€VI,€ðð€14€provides€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNo€fine€shall€be€laid€on€any€citizen€of€this€State€that€shall€exceed€fiftyÐ ˆØ Ðdollars,€unless€it€shall€be€assessed€by€a€jury€of€his€peers,€who€shallÐ tÄ Ðassess€the€fine€at€the€time€they€find€the€fact,€if€they€think€the€fineÐ `° Ðshould€be€more€than€fifty€dollars.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌAt€first€blush,€it€would€seem€unnecessary€to€proceed€any€further:€Davis€was,€at€least€initially,€òòfinedóóÐ $ t Ð$300,€and€the€Constitution€prohibits€the€imposition€of€a€òòfineóó€of€more€than€$50.€€However,€our€inquiryÐ  ` Ðdoes€not€end€there,€because,€as€noted€below,€there€is€ample€precedent€that€penalties€imposed€byÐ ü L  Ðmunicipalities€for€violations€of€their€ordinances€„„€penalties€that€are€often€referred€to€as€fines€„„€areÐ è 8  Ðactually€not€ð ðfinesðð€within€the€meaning€of€Article€VI,€ðð€14.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Myers,ó óóó€787€S.W.2d€921,€926€(Tenn.€1990),€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ¬ü  Ðnoted€that€it€had€long€been€held€in€Tennessee€that€an€action€to€recover€a€fine€or€penalty€for€aÐ ˜è  Ðviolation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€a€civil€proceeding.€€The€Court€traced€this€rule€back€to€itsÐ „Ô  Ðdecision€in€ò òòòMeaher€v.€Mayor€and€Aldermen€of€Chattanooga,ó óóó€1€Head€74,€38€Tenn.€74€(1858),€inÐ pÀ Ðwhich€the€Court€stated:Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€the€fine,€forfeiture,€or€penalty€„„€for€the€name€is€not€so€material€òò„„Ð 4„ Ðóóis€fixed€by€the€ordinance,€for€any€particular€thing,€that€may€beÐ  p Ðrecovered€by€warrant,€and€the€only€proof€required€is,€that€the€offence,Ð  \ Ðor€act€to€which€such€fine€or€forfeiture€is€attached,€has€beenÐ øH Ðcommitted.€€òòDebt€is€the€proper€action€for€penalties€prescribed€forÐ ä4 Ðcertain€offences,€by€acts€or€ordinancesóó.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòMyers,€ó óóó787€S.W.2d€at€923€(citing€ò òòòMeaher,ó óóó€38€Tenn.€at€76).€€(Emphasis€in€ò òòòMyersó óóó).€€In€ò òòòOððHaver€v.Ð ¨ø ÐMontgomery,ó óóó€120€Tenn.€448,€111€S.W.€449€(1908),€the€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€a€proceedingÐ ”ä Ðto€recover€a€penalty€for€a€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€has€characteristics€of€a€civil€as€well€asÐ €Ð Ða€criminal€action:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€truth,€when€a€violator€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€arrested€andÐ D!” Ðbrought€before€the€municipal€court,€he€is€tried€for€an€offenseÐ 0"€  Ðcommitted€against€the€laws€of€the€corporation;€but,€in€the€absence€ofÐ #l! Ðapt€legislation€to€the€contrary,€his€punishment€is€in€the€form€of€theÐ $X" Ðassessment€of€a€penalty.€€The€practice€partakes€of€both€a€civil€andÐ ô$D # Ðcriminal€character.€€He€is€arrested€on€warrant€as€in€criminal€cases,€andÐ à%0!$ Ðif€found€guilty€a€judgment€is€entered€against€him€as€for€a€fine,€and€onÐ Ì&"% Ðfailure€to€pay€the€amount€assessed€against€him€he€may€be€held€inÐ ¸'#& Ðcustody€until€he€pays€or€secures€it,€or€be€put€at€labor€to€pay€it.€€IfÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdissatisfied€with€the€judgment€he€may€appeal,€as€in€civil€cases,€uponÐ )à$( Ðcomplying€with€the€law€or€statute€applicable,€and€may€have€a€retrialÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€the€circuit€court,€where€the€matter€will€be€heard€de€novo,€the€rulesÐ h+¸&* Ðof€practice€applicable€to€civil€cases€applying€in€such€trial;€but€at€lastÐ ° Ðthe€purpose€of€the€action€is€punishment.€€So€it€is€perceived€the€actionÐ œì Ðis€partly€criminal€and€partly€civil;€a€criminal€action€in€substance€andÐ ˆØ Ðpurpose,€and€partly€civil€and€partly€criminal€in€the€practice€governingÐ tÄ Ðit.€€When€we€characterize€the€action€as€being€of€a€criminal€nature,€weÐ `° Ðdo€not€mean€to€be€understood€as€using€the€term€wholly€in€the€senseÐ L œ Ðin€which€it€is€applicable€to€actions€brought€by€the€state€in€the€form€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðindictments€and€presentments€for€violations€of€the€criminal€laws€ofÐ $ t Ðthe€state,€but€rather€by€analogy,€and€for€want€of€a€better€term.€€AÐ  ` Ðmunicipality€is€a€government€within€itself,€and€must€have€the€powerÐ ü L  Ðto€punish€for€offenses€against€its€laws,€and€must€be€able€to€bring€thatÐ è 8  Ðpunishment€to€bear€and€to€make€it€effective€by€its€own€agencies€„„€thatÐ Ô$  Ðis,€through€its€own€courts€and€officers.€€However,€the€right€of€appealÐ À  Ðmay€be€given,€and€generally€is€given,€and,€if€exercised,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmunicipality€appears€in€another€jurisdiction;€that€is,€in€the€courts€ofÐ ˜è  Ðthe€state,€as€a€suitor€to€recover€the€penalty€which€it€has€assessedÐ „Ô  Ðagainst€the€violator€of€its€laws.€€But€the€larger€court,€while€trying€theÐ pÀ Ðcontroversy€as€a€civil€suit,€will€see€to€it€that€the€municipality,€ifÐ \¬ Ðsuccessful,€shall€have€there€the€same€sanctions€for€the€enforcement€ofÐ H˜ Ðits€laws€as€if€the€trial€had€terminated€in€the€municipal€court.€€In€truth,Ð 4„ Ðthe€action€is€in€its€various€aspects€a€hybrid€one,€partly€criminal€andÐ  p Ðpartly€civil.Ð \` x` x ÐÌò òòòOððHaver,ó óóó€111€S.W.€at€451„452.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€1964,€the€Court€of€Appeals€addressed€the€exact€issue€presented€in€the€instant€case.€€InÐ ¼  Ðò òòòOððDell€v.€City€of€Knoxville,ó óóó€388€S.W.2d€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1964),€the€defendant,€who€was€finedÐ ¨ø Ð$100€by€a€city€judge€for€a€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance,€argued€that€both€the€fine€and€theÐ ”ä Ðordinance€authorizing€it€violated€Article€VI,€ðð€14.€€This€Court€expressly€rejected€the€defendantððsÐ €Ð Ðargument,€relying€upon€the€long„standing€rule€in€Tennessee€that€a€proceeding€for€a€violation€of€aÐ l¼ Ðmunicipal€ordinance€is€a€civil€action,€not€a€criminal€proceeding.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€152.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àSix€years€after€the€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€decision,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€in€ò òòòWaller€v.Ð 0"€  ÐFlorida,ó óóó€397€U.S.€387,€395,€90€S.Ct.€1184,€1188„89,€25€L.Ed.2d€435€(1970),€that,€under€doubleÐ #l! Ðjeopardy€principles,€a€defendant€who€was€tried€in€a€municipal€court€for€violating€a€municipalÐ $X" Ðordinance€could€not€later€be€tried€by€the€state€for€state€offenses€based€upon€the€same€facts.€€InÐ ô$D # Ðò òòòMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€Miles,ó óóó€524€S.W.2d€656,€658„59,Ð à%0!$ Ð660€(Tenn.€1975),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€applying€ò òòòWaller,ó óóó€concluded€that€a€proceeding€forÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€imposition€of€a€fine€in€a€municipal€court€constituted€jeopardy€under€the€double€jeopardyÐ ¸'#& Ðprovisions€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€The€plaintiff,€citing€€òòò òOððHaver€ó óóóandÐ ¤(ô#' Ðòòò òOððDellóóó ó,€had€argued€that€double€jeopardy€did€not€occur€if€the€proceeding€was€simply€for€theÐ )à$( Ðimposition€of€a€fine€in€a€civil€proceeding.€€The€ò òòòMilesó óóó€Court€rejected€this€argument,€opining€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðò òòòOððHaveró óóó€and€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€had€been,€ð ðat€least€impliedly,€overruledðð€by€ò òòòState€v.€Jacksonó óóó,€503€S.W.2d€185Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€1973).€€ò òòòMiles,ó óóó€524€S.W.2d€at€659.€€In€ò òòòJacksonó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€juvenile€foundÐ ° Ðnot€guilty€in€a€juvenile€proceeding,€which€is€considered€a€civil€proceeding,€could€not€be€tried€againÐ œì Ðfor€the€same€offense€upon€appeal€to€the€circuit€court.€€ò òòòJackson,ó óóó€503€S.W.2d€at€188.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€ò òòòMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.€Allen,ó óóó€529€S.W.2d€699Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1975),€the€Supreme€Court€was€presented€with€the€issue€of€who€should€be€the€clerk€of€theÐ L œ Ðgeneral€sessions€court€of€Davidson€County.€€The€resolution€of€that€issue€required€a€determinationÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€whether€€proceedings€for€violations€of€municipal€ordinances€are€civil€or€criminal€in€nature.€€TheÐ $ t ÐSupreme€Court€concluded€that€such€proceedings€are€civil.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€706.€€In€reviewing€the€applicableÐ  ` Ðcase€law,€the€Court€revisited€ò òòòMilesó óóó€and€noted€that€its€language€ð ðmay€have€been€overbroadðð€when€itÐ ü L  Ðwas€stated€that€ò òòòOððHaveró óóó€and€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€had€been€impliedly€overruled:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMore€precise€language€„„€and€language€more€in€keeping€with€theÐ À  Ðthrust€of€our€principal€holding€in€òòò òMilesó óóó,€which€we€reiterate€„„€wouldÐ ¬ü  Ðhave€been:Иè ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàThese€cases€[ò òòòOððHaveró óóó€and€ò òòòOððDelló óóó]€are€not€authorityÐ pÀ Ðfor€the€proposition€that€an€appeal€may€follow€anÐ \¬ Ðacquittal,€after€a€trial€on€the€merits€in€a€case€involvingÐ H˜ Ðviolation€of€a€city€ordinance.Ð4„¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà8¸ ¸ àà8hÈÈà*à À à*à  à*Ð \hphp ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhen€examined€in€the€light€of€the€foregoing,€there€is€no€conflictÐ ä4 Ðbetween€the€òòò òMilesó óóó„òòò òJacksonó óóó€holding€and€that€of€òòò òOððHaveró óóó€and€òòò òOððDelló óóó.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àProcedurally,€cases€involving€violation€of€city€ordinances€continue€toÐ ¨ø Ðbe€civil€in€nature.Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThey€are€in€the€nature€of€an€action€for€debt.€€They€are€not€criminalÐ l¼ Ðprosecutions,€but€are€merely€penal€actions€having€as€their€object€theÐ X ¨ Ðvindication€of€domestic€regulations.€€They€are€governed€by€rules€inÐ D!” Ðcivil€cases€including€the€right€to€retrial€on€appeal€to€the€circuit€courtÐ 0"€  Ðwhere€the€matter€will€be€heard€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAn€appeal€for€the€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€a€civil€action,Ð ô$D # Ðtriable€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€in€the€circuit€court€in€precisely€the€same€manner€andÐ à%0!$ Ðunder€the€same€procedural€rules€as€those€governing€tort€actionsÐ Ì&"% Ðinstituted€in€the€General€Sessions€Courts,€to€include€the€right€to€a€juryÐ ¸'#& Ðtrial.€€But,€as€held€in€òòò òMilesó óóó,€the€rules€of€double€jeopardy€apply€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpreclude€an€appeal€from€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€€This€seeminglyÐ )à$( Ðâ âincongruous€result€is€mandated€by€the€holding€of€the€Supreme€CourtÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€United€States€in€ò òòòWaller€v.€Floridaó óóó...and€is€supported€by€otherÐ ° Ðcases€cited€in€òòò òMilesó óóó.Ðœì` x` x Ðâ âÌò òòòAllen,ó óóó€529€S.W.2d€at€707€(citations€omitted).€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAs€we€noted€at€the€beginning€of€this€particular€part€of€our€analysis,€the€Supreme€Court,€inÐ L œ Ðò òòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Myers,ó óóó€787€S.W.2d€921,€928€(Tenn.€1990),€reaffirmed€the€principle€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðproceedings€for€violations€of€municipal€ordinances€are€civil€in€nature.€€In€ò òòòMyers,ó óóó€the€Supreme€CourtÐ $ t Ðheld€that€a€defendant€convicted€of€a€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance€is€entitled€to€a€jury€trial€onÐ  ` Ðappeal€to€the€circuit€court.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€928.€€The€Court€stated€as€follows:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€summary,€for€130€years€proceedings€to€recover€fines€for€theÐ Ô$  Ðviolation€of€municipal€ordinances€have€been€considered€civil€for€theÐ À  Ðpurposes€of€procedure€and€appeal,€although€the€principles€of€doubleÐ ¬ü  Ðjeopardy€have€recently€been€determined€to€apply€in€such€cases.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðbasis€of€the€cases,€accepted€in€ò òòòAllenó óóó„ò òòòBriggsó óóó,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€is€that€an€appeal€toÐ „Ô  Ðcircuit€court€of€a€judgment€of€a€municipal€court€„„€even€when€theÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€is€the€appellant€„„€is€an€appeal€in€a€civil€action€brought€byÐ \¬ Ðthe€municipality€to€recover€a€ð ðdebt.ðð€ò òòòó óóóÐH˜` x` x ÐÌòòò òId.ó óóó€at€928€(citation€omitted).€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àIn€the€course€of€analyzing€the€numerous€cases€on€the€issue,€the€ò òòòMyersó óóó€Court€noted€that€thisÐ øH ÐCourtððs€holding€in€ò òòòOððDelló óó󀄄€that€a€fine€for€the€violation€of€a€city€ordinance€is€not€a€ð ðfineðð€within€theÐ ä4 Ðmeaning€of€Article€VI,€ðð€14€„„€is€ð ða€holding€compatible€with€the€ò òòòAllenó óóó„ò òòòBriggsó óóó€position.ðð€€ò òòòId.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àó óóóFinally,€we€note€the€recent€decision€of€a€panel€of€the€Middle€Section€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€Ð ¤ô Ðin€ò òòòBarrett€v.€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County,ó óóó€C/A€No.€M1999„Ð à Ð01130„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€798657,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€M.S.,€filed€June€22,€2000)€(perm.€app.Ð |Ì Ðfiled€August€22,€2000),€wherein€this€Court,€speaking€through€Judge€Cantrell,€held€that€ð ðwhen€theÐ h¸ Ðdust€settled€after€the€ò òòòMyersó óóó€decision,€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€was€still€the€leading€case€on€whether€a€jury€had€toÐ T ¤ Ðimpose€a€fine/penalty€of€more€than€$50€for€the€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance.ðð€€In€addressingÐ @! Ðviolations€of€a€city€ordinance,€we€specifically€held€in€ò òòòBarrettó óóó€thatÐ ,"|  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àthe€courts€have€adhered€to€the€òòò òMeaheró óóó€holding€that€the€name€givenÐ $T" Ðthe€punishment€in€the€ordinance„„whether€fine,€forfeiture,€or€penalty„„Ð ð$@ # Ðis€not€material;€it€is€still€in€the€nature€of€a€civil€debt,€recoverable€in€aÐ Ü%,!$ Ðcivil€action.€€Therefore,€the€imposition€of€the€$500€penalties€by€theÐ È&"% Ðgeneral€sessions€court€did€not€violate€Article€6,€ðð€14€of€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐConstitution.Ðœì` x` x ÐÌò òòòIdó óóó.€at€*2€(citations€omitted).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€pursuant€to€ò òòòOððDell,€Barrett,€and€Myersó óóó,€we€conclude€that€the€$300€fineÐ L œ Ðimposed€by€the€city€judge€in€this€case€does€not€violate€Article€VI,€ðð€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐHowever,€we€will€not€disturb€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€imposing€a€$50€fine€upon€the€defendant,€asÐ $ t Ðthat€amount€is€within€the€penalty€range€provided€by€Ordinance€ðð€1„8.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWere€we€free€to€ð ðwrite€on€a€clean€slate,ðð€we€might€well€be€inclined€to€hold€that€the€ð ðpenaltyÐ è 8  Ðand€forfeitureðð€mentioned€in€Chattanooga€City€Ordinance€ðð€1„8€is,€in€fact,€a€fine€of€the€typeÐ Ô$  Ðcontemplated€by€Article€VI.,€ðð€14,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Such€a€holding€would€necessarilyÐ À  Ðlead€to€a€further€holding€that€the€legislation€before€us,€both€city€and€state,€is€unconstitutional€asÐ ¬ü  Ðapplied€in€this€case,€òòi.e.óó,€the€imposition€of€a€ð ðpenalty€and€forfeitureðð€in€excess€of€$50€by€a€judge€atÐ ˜è  Ða€bench€trial.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€that€we€are€at€liberty€to€make€such€findings€and€holdingsÐ „Ô  Ðbecause€the€ð ðslateðð€is€not€clean.€€There€are€two€decisions€of€this€Court,€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€and€ò òòòBarrett,ó óóó€expresslyÐ pÀ Ðholding€to€the€contrary.€€The€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€ò òòòMyersó óóó€appears€to€approve€the€basicÐ \¬ Ðholding€of€ò òòòOððDelló óóó€that€a€ð ðfineðð€for€the€violation€of€a€city€ordinance€is€not€a€fine€of€the€typeÐ H˜ Ðcontemplated€by€Article€VI,€ðð€14.€€We€believe€that€we€are€bound€by€precedent€to€reject€the€ArticleÐ 4„ ÐVI,€ðð€14,€argument€of€the€defendant,€which€argument€was€accepted€by€the€trial€court€as€a€part€of€theÐ  p Ðrationale€for€its€judgment.€€If€an€appellate€judicial€determination€is€to€be€made€upholding€the€trialÐ  \ Ðcourtððs€judgment€on€this€point,€we€believe€it€is€the€prerogative€of€the€Supreme€Court€to€make€it.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€find€and€hold€that€Chattanooga€City€Ordinance€ðð€1„8,€facially€and€as€applied,Ð Ð  Ðdoes€not€violate€Article€VI,€Section€14,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòóóó óIII.Ð ”ä ÐÓU‡ÓÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€issue€of€the€constitutionality€of€T.C.A.€ðððð€6„54„306€and€6„54„308,€which,Ð l¼ Ðrespectively,€enable€home€rule€municipalities€and€non„home€rule€municipalities€to€impose€penaltiesÐ X ¨ Ðup€to€$500€for€violations€of€municipal€ordinances.€€In€holding€both€provisions€unconstitutional,€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€declared€that€ð ðno€reasonable€basisðð€exists€to€distinguish€home€rule€municipalities€ð ðfromÐ 0"€  Ðother€municipalities€or€non„incorporated€areas€of€the€State,ðð€and€that€such€a€classification€is€ð ðpurelyÐ #l! Ðarbitrary€and€therefore€unconstitutional€under€the€equal€protection€clause.ððÐ $X" ÐÌà  àArticle€XI,€ðð€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Legislature€shall€have€no€power€to€suspend€any€general€law€forÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€benefit€of€any€particular€individual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€for€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbenefit€of€individuals€inconsistent€with€the€general€laws€of€the€land;Ð )à$( Ðnor€to€pass€any€law€granting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,€rights,Ð |*Ì%) Ðprivileges,€immunitie,€[immunities]€or€exemptions€other€than€such€asÐ h+¸&* Ðmay€be,€by€the€same€law€extended€to€any€member€of€the€community,Ð ° Ðwho€may€be€able€to€bring€himself€within€the€provisions€of€such€law.€Ð œì Ðà ¸ àà  àÐ ` x` x ЀÌà  àAcknowledging€the€similarity€between€Article€XI,€ðð€8€and€the€Equal€Protection€Clause€of€theÐ `° ÐUnited€States€Constitution,€Tennessee€courts€have€long€applied€an€equal€protection€analysis€toÐ L œ Ðconstitutional€challenges€brought€pursuant€to€Article€XI,€ðð€8.€€òòSee€ò òMotlow€v.€State,ó óóó€125€Tenn.€547,Ð 8 ˆ Ð145€S.W.€177,€180€(Tenn.€1912);€ò òòòKing„Bradwall€Partnership€v.€Johnson€Controls,€Inc.,ó óóó€865Ð $ t ÐS.W.2d€18,€21€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Absent€an€infringement€of€a€fundamental€right,€or€aÐ  ` Ðclassification€involving€a€ð ðsuspectðð€or€ð ðprotectedðð€class€„„€neither€of€which€is€present€here€„„€theÐ ü L  Ðstandard€to€be€applied€in€analyzing€equal€protection€claims€is€the€familiar€ð ðrational€basisðð€standard.€Ð è 8  Ðò òòòState€v.€Tester,ó óóó€879€S.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.€1994);€ò òòòKing„Bradwall,ó óóó€865€S.W.2d€at€21.Ð Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌà  àWe€do€not€find€that€these€statutes€violate€equal€protection.€€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€empowersÐ ¬ü  Ðhome€rule€municipalities€to€enact€penalties€up€to€$500€for€ordinance€infractions;€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„308Ð ˜è  Ðempowers€òòall€other€municipalitiesóó€to€do€the€same.€€Pursuant€to€these€provisions,€all€municipalities„„Ð „Ô  Ðhome€rule€or€otherwise€„„€are€empowered€with€the€authority€to€impose€increased€penalties€forÐ pÀ Ðviolations€of€municipal€ordinances.€€Thus,€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€home€rule€municipalitiesÐ \¬ Ðare€classified€differently€and€in€an€arbitrary€manner€from€other€municipalities€such€as€to€violate€equalÐ H˜ Ðprotection€is€erroneous.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€distinction€made€between€municipalities€and€ð ðnon„incorporated€areas€of€the€State,ððÐ  \ Ðwe€find€that€the€Legislature€had€a€rational€basis€for€this€classification.€€An€incorporated€municipality,Ð øH Ðwith€clearly€defined€boundaries€and€police€power€responsibilities€within€those€boundaries,€certainlyÐ ä4 Ðhas€a€unique€interest€in€addressing€prohibited€conduct€that€occurs€within€its€geographic€borders.€€ByÐ Ð  Ðthe€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðððð€6„54„306€and€6„54„308,€the€Legislature€has€provided€such€municipalitiesÐ ¼  Ðwith€a€mechanism€by€which€to€enforce€its€own€ordinances,€to€deter€infractions€by€the€imposition€ofÐ ¨ø Ðpenalties€and/or€imprisonment,€and€to€recoup€the€administrative€costs€incurred€in€the€process.€€WeÐ ”ä Ðfind€that€these€reasons€provide€a€rational€basis€for€this€classification.€€We€find€no€violation€of€equalÐ €Ð Ðprotection€in€the€classification.Ð l¼ Ðà  àÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð D!” ÐÓ%™ÓÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€rationale€for€declaring€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€unconstitutional€was€two„fold.€Ð #l! ÐFirst,€the€trial€court€reasoned€that€the€provision€denies€citizens€ð ðequal€treatment€under€the€lawðð€inÐ $X" Ðthat€it€ð ðdelegat[es]€to€municipalities€the€authority€to€adopt€by€ordinances€state€statues€[sic]€withoutÐ ô$D # Ðrequiring€them€to€impose€the€same€penal€provisions.ðð€€Second,€the€trial€court€declared€that€the€statuteÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðimpinges€upon€the€authority€of€the€District€Attorney€General,ðð€who€alone€ð ðcan€make€the€decisionÐ Ì&"% Ðwhether€to€proceed€with€a€prosecution€for€an€offense€committed€within€his€or€her€district.ðð€€We€willÐ ¸'#& Ðaddress€each€of€these€rationales€in€turn.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðâ âà  àÐ )à$( Ðà  àRegarding€the€trial€courtððs€holding€that€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€denies€equal€protection,€we€findÐ ° Ðthat€a€rational€basis€exists€for€the€delegation€of€authority€to€enforce€certain€driving€offenses.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рœì Ðâ âCertainly,€a€municipality€has€a€special€interest€in€the€operation€of€motor€vehicles€on€the€streets€withinÐ ˆØ Ðits€borders.€€We€therefore€do€not€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€this€delegation€of€authority€deniesÐ tÄ Ðð ðequal€treatmentðð€in€violation€of€the€Constitution.€€€€Again,€we€find€the€classification€to€have€aÐ `° Ðrational€basis.€€ò òFurthermore,€we€find€no€basis€for€holding€that€the€general€authorization€in€T.C.A.€ððÐ L œ Ð55„10„307€runs€afoul€of€equal€protection€simply€because€it€fails€to€require€a€municipality€to€imposeÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€exact€penalties€set€forth€in€the€corresponding€state€statutes.€€A€municipalityððs€obvious€interestÐ $ t Ðin€the€use€of€its€streets€is€a€sufficient€rational€basis€for€authorizing€it€to€impose€different€penalties.Ð  ` Ðó óÌà  àIn€holding€that€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€unconstitutionally€impinges€upon€the€authority€of€theÐ è 8  ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,€the€trial€court€relied€upon€the€Supreme€Courtððs€recent€decision€in€ò òòòRamseyÐ Ô$  Ðv.€Town€of€Oliver€Springs,ó óóó€998€S.W.2d€207€(Tenn.€1999).€€In€ò òòòRamseyó óóó,€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ À  Ðof€Anderson€County€filed€suit€against€the€Town€of€Oliver€Springs,€alleging€that€the€townððs€policyÐ ¬ü  Ðand€practice€of€prosecuting€Anderson€County€criminal€cases€in€a€city€court€located€in€Roane€CountyÐ ˜è  Ðwas€illegal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€207„08.€€The€city€€court€was€granted€jurisdiction€over€such€cases€by€a€private€act.€Ð „Ô  Ðò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€Supreme€Court€noted€that€the€District€Attorney€General€has€ð ðextremely€broadðð€discretionÐ pÀ Ðin€seeking€warrants,€presentments,€informations,€or€indictments€for€offenses€committed€within€hisÐ \¬ Ðor€her€district.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€209.€€The€Court€went€on€to€state:€Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWere€it€otherwise,€prosecutorial€discretion€would€rest€not€with€theÐ  p ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,€but€with€police€officers€who€may€arrestÐ  \ Ðwith€or€without€a€warrant€depending€on€the€circumstances.€€This€is,Ð øH Ðin€fact,€precisely€the€harm€created€by€the€policy€and€practiceÐ ä4 Ðemployed€by€the€Town€of€Oliver€Springs.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€210.€€While€finding€the€private€act€ð ðfacially€valid,ðð€the€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€the€act€„„Ð ¨ø Ðby€permitting€the€Townððs€police€chief€to€take€defendants€who€allegedly€committed€crimes€inÐ ”ä ÐAnderson€County€before€a€city€court€in€Roane€County€„„€ð ðimpeded€the€constitutional€and€statutoryÐ €Ð Ðobligation€of€the€District€Attorney€General€for€Anderson€County€to€discharge€the€duties€of€hisÐ l¼ Ðoffice.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òòòó óóóà  àRelying€upon€ò òòòRamseyó óóó,€the€trial€court€in€the€instant€case€found€T.C.A.€ðð€55„10„307€to€beÐ 0"€  Ðunconstitutional.€€The€trial€court€did€not€question€the€facial€validity€of€the€statute;€rather,€it€found€thatÐ #l! Ðð ðin€its€applicationsðð€the€statute€impinged€upon€the€authority€of€the€District€Attorney€General.€€WeÐ $X" Ðfind€that€the€trial€courtððs€reliance€upon€ò òòòRamseyó óóó€is€misplaced.€€In€ò òòòRamseyó óóó,€the€private€act€was€heldÐ ô$D # Ðto€be€unconstitutional€as€applied€because€the€Town€of€Oliver€Springs€had€both€a€ð ðpolicy€andÐ à%0!$ Ðpracticeðð€of€prosecuting€òòall€Anderson€Countyóó€òòcriminalóó€cases€arising€within€the€town€in€the€city€courtÐ Ì&"% Ðlocated€in€Roane€County.òòò òó óóó€€In€the€instant€case,€however,€there€is€insufficient€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ° Ðto€establish€a€ð ðpolicy€and€practiceðð€on€the€part€of€the€City€or€its€officers€of€citing€òòall€óóthose€whoÐ œì Ðviolate€state€traffic€laws€within€the€Cityððs€borders€to€the€city€court€to€be€tried€for€violating€a€cityÐ ˆØ Ðordinance,€in€those€cases€where€there€is€both€a€state€law€and€city€ordinance€implicated€by€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendantððs€conduct.€€Two€police€officers€testified€that€they€knew€of€no€policy€or€directive€to€citeÐ `° Ðtraffic€offenders€only€for€municipal€violations€instead€of€state€offenses.€€Further,€the€record€does€notÐ L œ Ðcontain€evidence€of€a€practice€of€the€Cityððs€officers€of€citing€only€for€municipal€violations.€€As€such,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwe€cannot€say€that€the€City€has€a€ð ðpolicy€and€practiceðð€of€citing€traffic€offenders€only€to€city€courtÐ $ t Ðthat€rises€to€the€level€of€impinging€upon€the€discretion€and€authority€of€the€District€Attorney€General.Ð  ` ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð è 8  ÐÓ§±ÓÌà  àThe€trial€court€held€that€Chattanooga€City€Code€ðð€1„8€is€invalid€because€it€does€not€ð ðcomplyððÐ À  Ðwith€the€provisions€of€T.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306.€€Specifically,€the€court€found€that€the€ordinance€(1)€doesÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€set€a€maximum€penalty€of€thirty€days;€(2)€does€not€state€that€it€is€to€cover€administrative€expensesÐ ˜è  Ðincident€to€correction€of€municipal€violations,€and€(3)€provides€that€violations€of€ordinances€shallÐ „Ô  Ðbe€òòpunishedóó€by€a€penalty.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àT.C.A.€ðð€6„54„306€provides€that€ð ðhome€rule€municipalities€are€empowered€to€set€maximumÐ H˜ Ðpenalties€of€thirty€(30)€days€imprisonment€òòand/or€óómonetary€penalties€and€forfeitures€up€to€fiveÐ 4„ Ðhundred€dollars€($500),€òòor€bothóó,€to€cover€administrative€expenses€incident€to€correction€of€municipalÐ  p Ðviolations.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Clearly,€the€statute€does€not€require€a€municipality€to€set€aÐ  \ Ðmaximum€penalty€of€30€days€imprisonment;€nor€does€the€statute€require€that€the€ordinance€adoptingÐ øH Ðthis€provision€include€a€statement€that€the€purpose€of€the€ordinance€is€to€ð ðcover€administrativeÐ ä4 Ðexpenses.ðð€€These€bases€for€the€trial€courtððs€holding€are€without€merit.€€Further,€we€do€not€find€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€ordinance€is€invalid€merely€because€of€the€use€of€the€term€ð ðpunished.ðð€€As€we€have€already€held,Ð ¼  Ðthe€penalty€imposed€by€this€ordinance€is€a€òòcivilóó€penalty;€it€is€not€criminal€in€nature.€€The€fact€that€theÐ ¨ø ÐCity€chose€to€use€the€language€ð ðpunished€by€a€monetary€penaltyðð€does€not€alter€the€civil€nature€ofÐ ”ä Ðthe€penalty€imposed.€€òòSee€ò òBarrettó óóó€at€*€2.€€We€therefore€find€that€ðð€1„8€is€valid.Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ]¹ÓÌà  àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€the€various€state€statutes€and€ChattanoogaÐ 0"€  ÐCity€Ordinance€ðð€1„8€unconstitutional€and/or€invalid.€€It€results€that€the€injunction€should€not€haveÐ #l! Ðbeen€issued׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and,€accordingly,€the€issuance€of€same€is€hereby€reversed€and€held€for€naught.€€TheÐ $X" Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€assessing€a€$50€fine€against€the€defendant€is€affirmed.€€This€case€isÐ ô$D # Ðremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€the€entry€of€an€order€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÐ ° Ðtaxed€to€the€appellee.Ð œì ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð `° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ L œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à