WPCC $ 5)|XA{"8gwb)F}ʹ5?Yo Yi`:@ӓuXwƫ.λ}Z@"q;XZ/f^mWPd8T~8I%\CePt}*fUN/;e yTg]X~3SnSHRdy1=)'4a^z3R+%I P>գEmlK4)x-(_^"ۇ5_:"CExeɃ?>FAt<{:5*t Ҋ`G(4ƩfFZy0H.Y3!sj#G=wšm*͝nS &JJ+֪ȩm ekkxs,X4ʉT=S @qNIq\ۅyt2 ѠwoݟATCqL]Bį,@  % ^ 0 w\UWN`4 zK m#66IINrE D 6))))) 0? 033 0$ 0 0 0D) 0>b# "++ 0M 0/ 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0`$ 06% 0 & 0& 0' 0p( 0Q) 0/* 0 + 0+ 0, 0- 0X. 0$/ 00/ 0<0 0Y0 0>1 0vU1 0`1 0`+2 0`2 0`2 0`K3 083 03 04 025 05 0:6 B  7 0Y'7 07 D5$8 D-Y8 0K8 0_8 AS099 0I: 0D: A1; 0 ; 0j< 0P> B*? D/? 0-@ D/A 0A 06B 0B 0:C 0^&D 0<DU6DU>DU*4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E f^E^E E FEEE R&F LxF PF :G NG >G F H H rRH ~HH 8BIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIBIzIzIhKKwMM qQqQQWWXXXXXZZ__d'd'd6gg.ll#q#quuzzNN9BBB%{{{>ގ |}}]]lll_؟؟w77J,+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+k3|x 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.wpt#UHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 7 ' tg0tg .         E4. Dist. Atty Gen. DiscussionE2. CONST. TCA 6-54-306   2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0     2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  - -F. CONCLUSION28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5(|I2$ !.8@dd8         0  Ԁ,*CITE,dl*CODEKo<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis d64Hyperlink    (|3lj$ !.8@dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  <:FollowedHype    ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3lj$ !.8@dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK4go2Keyboard Ko<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Ko<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7f(X7  ?q%2A`Arial?  XXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d de)1dxd<:zTop of For7h(X7  ?q%2A`Arial?  XXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7e)2dxd0KS.SampleKo<6X9`(Courier NewKSp\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKo<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSp\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialD1. APPLICATION TO CITY OF CHATTANOOGA v. DAVISa0. OPINIONa1. City of Chattanooga v. Davisa2. Barrett v. Metropolitan Governmentb1. Application of Art. 6, sec. 14b2. Historical Back. Art. 6, sec. 14B3. Proceedings Mun. Ord.C1. PROPER TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER ARTICLE VI, SECTION 14 c2. Excessive Fines Analysisc3. Fines as Punishment Analysisd2. APPLICATION TO BARRETT v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENTE1. REMAINING ISSUES RAISED IN CITY OF CHATTANOOGA v. DAVISE3. CONST. tca 55-10-307  R$      1  Ԁ  _ChattanoogaCityCodesection24-13f  g (a)f  g Ԁreadsasfollows:f  g 8 @   8   ` (_a_) Anypersonwhodrivesanyvehicleinwilfulorwantondisregardforthesafetyof t personsorpropertyisguiltyofrecklessdriving.f  g Ԁ ^ R$      2  Ԁ  _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654306providesthatf  g f  g f  g [a]llhomerulemunicipalitiesareempowered  tosetmaximumpenaltiesofthirty(30)daysimprisonmentand/ormonetarypenaltiesandforfeituresuptofivehundred t dollars($500),orboth,tocoveradministrativeexpensesincidenttocorrectionofmunicipalviolations.f  g f  g  m R$      3  Ԁ  __ChattanoogaCityCodesection18(a)readsasfollows:  f  g 8   ` WhereverinthisCodeorinanyordinanceorruleorregulationpromulgatedbyanyofficer t ofthecityunderauthorityvestedinhimbylaworordinance,anyactisprohibitedorisdeclaredto 8 = beunlawfuloramisdemeanor,orthedoingofanyactisrequired,orthefailuretodoanyactis  declaredtobeunlawful,theviolationofanysuchprovisionofthisCodeoranysuchordinance,rule t orregulationshallbepunishedbyamonetarypenaltyandforfeiturenotexceedingfivehundred 8 dollars($500.00).  R$      4  Ԁ  _ArticleXI,section8issimilartotheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,anditprovides  that t f  g 8  [t]heLegislatureshallhavenopowertosuspendanygenerallawforthebenefitofanyparticular 8 individual,nortopassanylawforthebenefitofindividualsinconsistentwiththegenerallawsofthe L land;nortopassanylawgrantingtoanyindividualorindividuals,rights,privileges,immunities,or  exemptionsotherthansuchasmaybe,bythesamelawextendedtoanymemberofthecommunity,  whomaybeabletobringhimselfwithintheprovisionsofsuchlaw.H    f  g TheappellantfurtherarguedthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654308,whichpermitsnonhomerule  \ municipalitiestoestablishmonetarypenaltiesnotexceedingfivehundreddollars,f  g alsoviolatedArticleXI,section8.   Theconstitutionalityofsection654308hasnotbeenraisedonthisappeal,anditappearstohavenodirectapplication    totheissuespresentedbeforethisCourt.Therefore,wef  g f  g donotreferf  g Ԁtothisprovisionintheproceduralhistoryofthe X   case. G R$      5  Ԁ  __Whilenotstrictlyrelevantforpurposesofthisappeal,thecriminalcourtmodifieditsordertopermittheCity  tocollectfinesimposedbeforetheinjunction.  R$      6  Ԁ  _Althoughthecriminalcourtinitiallyruledthatsection654306wasconstitutional,inanothercasefollowing  theJune21hearing,thecourtfoundthatthisstatutewasunconstitutional.Itwasinlightofthissubsequentrulingthat t theappellantrequestedclarificationofthe courtspresentpositiononthisissue.  R$      7  Ԁ  _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510307(a)providesthat  f  g 8  [a]nyincorporatedmunicipalitymaybyordinanceadopt,byreference,anyoftheappropriate t provisionsof55-8-101--55-8-180,55-10-101--55-10-310,55-50-301,55-50-302,55-50-304, 8 55-50-305,55-50-311,and55-50-312,andmaybyordinanceprovideadditionalregulationsforthe L operationofvehicleswithinthemunicipality,whichshallnotbeinconflictwiththeprovisionsofsuch  sections.Allfines,penalties,andforfeituresofbondsimposedorcollectedundertheterms  of55-50-311and55-50-312,shallbepaidovertotheappropriatestateagencyasprovided H  in55-50-604.# \    #f  g Pursuanttothisstatute,theChattanoogaCityCounciladoptedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510205as  ChattanoogaCityCodesection2413.  R$      8  Ԁ  _ArticleVI,section5providesfortheconstitutionalofficesoftheStateAttorneyGeneralandlocalDistrict  AttorneysGeneral: t f  g 8  AnAttorneyGeneralandReporterfortheState,shallbeappointedbytheJudgesoftheSupreme 8 Courtandshallholdhisofficeforatermofeightyears.AnAttorneyfortheStateforanycircuitor L district,forwhichaJudgehavingcriminaljurisdictionshallbeprovidedbylaw,shallbeelectedby  thequalifiedvotersofsuch_circuit_Ԁordistrict,andshallholdhisofficeforatermofeightyears,and  shallhavebeenaresidentoftheStatefiveyears,andofthecircuitordistrictoneyear.Inallcases H  wheretheAttorneyforanydistrictfailsorrefusestoattendandprosecuteaccordingtolaw,theCourt  \ shallhavepowertoappointanAttorneyprotempore.   R$      9  Ԁ  _Thisfinalwarrantactuallycontainedtwoseparatecharges:f  g f  g _failure_f  g Ԁtosecureabuildingpermitandf  g f  g failuref  g Ԁto  abidebyastopworkorder.Despitethetwodifferentcharges,thegeneral_sessions_Ԁcourtimposedasinglefivehundred t dollarfinef  g Ԁwithoutdistinguishingbetweenthetwoviolations.Becausethreeotherwarrantsalsoaddressfailurestosecure 8 abuildingpermit,foreaseofanalysisinthisopinion,wetreatthisfinalwarrantasaddressingonlythestopworkorder L violation. , R$      10  Ԁ  _OralargumentwasheardinthesecasesonJune13,2001,inNashville.AlthoughChiefJusticeAnderson  wasunavoidablyabsentfromargument,thepartieswereinformedinopencourtofhisparticipationinthediscussionand t decisionofthesecasespursuanttoRule1(a)(ii)oftheInternalOperatingProceduresoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt: 8 8   ` Absentexceptionalcircumstances,allmembersofthisCourtshallparticipateinthehearing L anddeterminationofallcasesunlessdisqualifiedforconflicts.However,ahearingshallproceedas  schedulednotwithstandingtheunavoidableabsenceofoneormorejustices.Anyjusticewhois  unavoidablyabsentfromthehearingmayparticipateinthedeterminationofthecaseeitherby H  teleconferencing,videoconferencing,orbyreviewingthetapeoforalargument,subjecttothe  \ determinationoftheChiefJustice.Counselshallbeadvisedinopencourtthattheabsentjusticewill   fullyparticipateinthediscussionanddecisionofthecase. $ R$      11  Ԁ  _Indeed,noneofthedocumentscontainsanyprovisionthatwithholds_fromjudges_Ԁthepowertoimpose  certaintypesofpunishments.Interestingly,however,thenotionofwithholdingcertainpunishmentsfromjudgesisnot t uniqueinTennesseehistory,andonesuchprovisionappearedinthisstateasearlyas1780intheCumberlandCompact. 8 ThisCompact,whichestablishedacourtoftwelvejudgesclothedwithcivilandcriminaljurisdiction,expresslywithheld L fromjudgesthepowertoimposepunishmentsaffecting lifeormember.Instead,theCompactplacedthispowerof  punishmentwithinthesolediscretionofajury.SeeCumberlandCompactofGovernment(May1,1780),reprintedin  JohnTrotwoodMoore,Tennessee,TheVolunteerState111(1923).  R$      12  Ԁ  _DespitetheapparentlackofcontentionsurroundingtheFiftyDollarFinesClauseinthe1796Convention,  theclausesparkedsomecontroversyintheHouseof_Representatives_ԀduringthedebatesoverTennesseesadmissionto t theFederalUnion.Inparticular,RepresentativeWilliamL.Smith,aFederalistfromSouthCarolina,claimedthatthis 8 clausespecifically,alongwithafewothers, seemedtoclash_withsome_Ԁofthestipulationsinthe[1787Northwest] L ordinanceandwiththeConstitutionalrightsofCongress.SeeAntebellumTennessee:ADocumentaryHistory87(Eric  R.Lacy,ed.1980).RepresentativeSmithdidnotelaboratefurtherastopreciselywhichNorthwestOrdinancef  g f  g provisionsf  g   or rightsofCongressArticleV,section11founditselfinconflict.  R$      13  Ԁ  _Infootnote6ofitsopinion,theFerrisBrowningCourttracedthemeaningoftheterm fineatthetimeof  theadoptionandratificationoftheEighthAmendment: t 8   ` A finesignifiethapercuniariepunishmentforanoffence,oracontemptcommittedagainst 8 theking.1E.Coke,Institutes*126b.ThesecondeditionofCunninghamsLaw-Dictionary, L publishedin1771,defined finesforoffencesas amends,pecuniarypunishment,orrecompencefor  anoffencecommittedagainsttheKingandhislaws,oragainsttheLordofamanor.2T.  Cunningham,ANewandCompleteLaw-Dictionary(unpaginated).Seealso1T.Tomlins, H  Law-Dictionary796-799(1836)(same);1J.Bouvier,LawDictionary525(4thed.1852)(_same_). \   FerrisBrowningIndus._of_ԀVt.,Inc.,492U.S.at265n.6.  R$      14  Ԁ  _AsevidencedbythetwoopinionsbelowinDavis,therehasbeensomeconfusionastotheimportofMiles  inthewakeofourdecisioninMetropolitanGovernment_v._ԀAllen,529S.W.2d699(Tenn.1975).InAllen,weagain t heldthat [a]nappealfortheviolationofamunicipalordinanceisacivilaction,triable[d]enovointhecircuitcourtin 8 preciselythesamemannerandunderthesameproceduralrulesasthosegoverningtortactionsinstitutedintheGeneral L SessionsCourts,toincludetherighttoajurytrial.529S.W.2dat707.AlthoughwenotedthatMileswas overbroad  initsstatementsthatStatev.Jackson,503S.W.2d185(Tenn.1973),_impliedly_ԀoverruledODell,wedidnotexpress  anyfurtherdissatisfactionwithMiles,whichcontinuestorepresentanaccuratestatementofthelaw.Inanyevent, H  thoughJacksondidnotimpliedlyoverruleODell,itmustbeconcededthatMilesitselfrepresentsadefinitive  \ repudiationoftheODellrationalewithregardtopunitivesanctionsinmunicipalproceedings.  R$      15  Ԁ  __SeeCarolS.Steiker,PunishmentandProcedure:PunishmentTheoryandtheCriminal-CivilProcedural  Divide,85Geo.L.J.775,796(1997).AsimilarobservationwasmadebytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin t DepartmentofRevenueofMontanav.KurthRanch,511U.S.767,778(1994),whenitstatedthat [c]riminalfines,civil 8 penalties,civilforfeitures,andtaxesallsharecertainfeatures:Theygenerategovernmentrevenues,imposefiscal L burdensonindividualsanddetercertainbehavior. / R$      16  Ԁ  _Ofcourse,Stuartalsorequiresexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenthepropertyandtheoffense,  includingwhetheruseofthepropertywas(a)importanttothesuccessofthecrime,(b)deliberateandplannedormerely t incidentalandfortuitous,and(c)extensiveintermsoftimeandspatialuse.f  g f  g 963S.W.2dat35f  g .  R$      17  Ԁ  _Interestingly,Daviswasnotfinedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection2413(b),which,iffollowed,  shouldhaveresultedinafivedollarfine,giventhathehasnopreviousconvictionsforrecklessdriving.Therecordis t unclearastowhytheprovisionsofsection18(a)wereheldtogovernoverthemorespecificprovisionsofsection24 8 13(b),otherthansection18(a)wasapparentlythelastprovisionintimetobeenacted.f  g ԀNevertheless,Davissonly L challengeinthisCourtiswhetherproceedingsfortheviolationofamunicipalordinancearesubjecttotheprovisions  ofArticleVI,section14,andhehasnotchallengedthef  g Ԁtrialcourtsf  g Ԁreductionofthefinetofiftydollarsasimproper  undertheordinance. 4 R$      18  Ԁ  __InhisdissentingopinionintheCourtofAppeals,JudgeFrankswrotethatthegraduatedstructureofthe  penaltyf  g f  g ,whichprovidesf  g Ԁforenhancedfinesuponsuccessiveconvictionsf  g ,f  g Ԁstronglyindicatesthattheintentofthis t provisionistopunish,ratherthantoserveanyremedialpurpose.Weagreewiththisassessment,f  g Ԁsee,e.g.,People_v._ 8 Snook,947P.2d808,813(Cal.1997),_and_Ԁforthisandotherreasons,itappearsthatthesanctionforrecklessdriving L servesnoremedialpurposeatall.    However,becausethepunitiveintentofthissanctionisclearonthefaceofthevariousordinances,itis  unnecessaryforustofurtherinquireastowhethertheactualpurposeoreffectofthesanctionissuchthatitcannot H  legitimatelybeviewedasremedialinnature.Assuch,weneednotgoasfarasdidthelearnedJudgebelow.     R$      19  Ԁ  _AswediscussbelowinsectionII.A.,theclaimedauthorityforthepenaltiesinsection18f  g (a)f  g ԀisTennessee  CodeAnnotatedsection654306.However,thisstatuteplainlyconfersnosuchauthoritytoenactpunitivepenalties t inexcessoffiftydollars,eitherwithorwithoutajury.Instead,thepenaltiesimposedunderauthorityofsection654306 8 arelimitedtotherecoveryofadministrativeexpenses incidenttocorrectionofmunicipalviolations.Nevertheless, L toillustratethepointandtoleavenodoubtastoourholding,weareassuming,forpurposesofpresentanalysisonly,  thattheGeneralAssemblyhasgrantedauthoritytotheChattanoogaCityCounciltoenactpunitivepenaltiesinexcess  offiftydollars. r R$      20  Ԁ  _Huffmanfurtherheldthatwhenanappellatecourtvacatestheverdictofthejury,butthenaffirmsthe  defendantsconvictiononalesserincludedoffense,thecourtshouldremandthecaseforajurytoimposethefineifa t fineissetforthasameansofpunishment.See200Tenn.at501,292S.W.2dat744.Becausesuchisnotthecasehere, 8 theappropriateremedyonappealisreductionofthefinetofiftydollars.  R$      21  Ԁ  _Aswestatedearlier,theCourtofAppealsheldthatthef  g f  g threehundredf  g Ԁdollarfineimposedbythecitycourt  wasnotsubjecttolimitationbyArticleVI,section14.However,theactualjudgmentoftheintermediatecourtaffirmed t thefiftydollarfineasreducedbytheHamiltonCountyCriminalCourt.Therefore,inholdingthatthecitycourtsfine 8 wasunconstitutionallyimposed,wehaveeffectivelyaffirmedthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals,asmodifiedherein.  R$      22  Ԁ  _Ourunwillingnesstopermita remedialsanctionthatpredominantlyservesthepurposeofdeterrencelies  intheabilityofthisanalysistoclassifyallpenaltiesasremedial,andthereforetoserve_asanineffectualmeasure_Ԁofthe t natureofthepenaltyitself.Ifonedismisses_asremedial_Ԁthosepenaltiesthatservenorealremedialpurpose,otherthan 8 toensurethebenefitsofcompliancewiththelaw,nopenaltycouldeverbeproperlyclassifiedaspunitive. L   Forexample,usingthistypeofanalysis,thepunitivefinesimposedformisdemeanorsandfeloniesinTitle40  oftheTennesseeCodecouldallbecharacterizedas remedial.Onewouldsimplyneedtodeclarethatthefinesimposed  wouldhelpensurefuturecompliancewiththelaw,whichinturnwouldbringforththemyriadofbenefitsthatgaverise H  totheenactmentofthelawinthefirstplace.Thesheerelasticityofthisanalysisleadsustoconcludethatifthe  \ predominant remedialpurposeservedbyamonetarysanctionisensuringdeterrenceagainstfuturewrongdoing,then   thesanctionmoreproperlyappearstobepunitiveinitsactualpurposeoreffect. b R$      23  Ԁ  _Thatthefinedidnotservetorecoveradministrativeexpensesisclearlyseenfromthefactthatthegeneral  sessionscourtimposedcourtcostsinadditiontothefivehundreddollarfineoneachwarrant. U R$      24  Ԁ  _Weagreewiththeappellantthattheprovisionofthisstatuteauthorizingimprisonmentistroubling,because,  byitself,imprisonmentcanservenoremedialpurposeinsofarasthestatedgoalofthestatuteisconcerned,i.e.,recovery t ofadministrativeexpenses.Nevertheless,becauseDaviswasnotsubjecttoimprisonment,weneednotreachthe 8 questionofwhetherimprisonmentcouldberemedial.Itissufficienttostatethatthemonetarysanctionsauthorizedby L section654306arelimitedtotheremedialpurposeofrecoveringreasonableadministrativeexpensesandarenot  authorizedforpunitivemeasures. m R$      25  Ԁ  _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510308providesthat  8  [w]here[sections]55-8-101--55-8-180and55-10-101--55-10-310applytoterritorywithinthelimits t ofamunicipality,theprimaryresponsibilityforenforcingsuchsectionsshallbeonthemunicipality 8 whichshallbefurtherauthorizedtoenforcesuchadditionalordinancesfortheregulationofthe L operationofvehiclesasitdeemsproper. R$      26  Ԁ  _TheTownofOliverSpringsislocatedinbothAndersonandRoanecounties.  R$      27  Ԁ  _Alsoatthismeeting,thecitycourtjudgeremarkedthat ifpersonsarefinedfordrivingwithoutalicense[_,]_  wekeeptheentireamount[,]plusapartofthecourtcosts;_thatmoneyhasbeenredirectedbackintotheCityof t Chattanooga._ԀThisredirectingofmoneywasonereasonthatthecitycourtjudgebelievedthattherevenuenumbers 8 fromthecitycourt areasimpressiveastheyare.Transcript,MinutesofChattanoogaCityCouncilMeeting,at2(Sept. L 5,1995).Thesetranscriptswereadmittedintoevidencewithout_objection_ԀattheAugust13,1999,hearinginthe  HamiltonCountyCriminalCourt. !.8@dd8     _   @8XXdd8,@Pr rP@ N,@INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#@N,a#Ԉ &   June13,2001Session L XX@#@XXD# CITYOFCHATTANOOGAv.KEVINDAVIS XX@ J #@XX#XX@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals  J Ѐ#@XX#XX@CriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  6 @@No.225103Hon.DouglasA.Meyer,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200000664SCR11CV#@XX#f  XX@g ԀFiledSeptember4,2001   AV) ` dE<h` A i   AND P #@XX#XX@#@XX# FRANKBARRETTv.METROPOLITANGOVERNMENTOF d NASHVILLEANDDAVIDSONCOUNTY XX@Ԁ (x #@XX#XX@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals (x Ѐ#@XX#XX@CircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty d @@No.98C1095Hon.WalterC.Kurtz,Judge P @@*AV) ` dE<` A  @@TTNo.M199901130SCR11CV#@XX#XX@ԀFiledSeptember4,_2001_  AV) ` dE<!` A #@XX#XX@ !!   #@XX #XX@TheprimaryissuepresentedbytheseconsolidatedcasesiswhetherArticleVI,section14ofthe ~#$ TennesseeConstitution,whichprohibitsthelayingoffinesinexcessoffiftydollarsunlessassessed j$% byajury,appliestoproceedingsfortheviolationofamunicipalordinance.f  g WeholdthatArticleVI, V% & section14doesapplytosuchproceedingswhenf  g eithertheintendedpurposeortheactualpurpose B&!' oreffectoff  g themonetaryassessmentisf  g f  g toservef  g Ԁasapunitivemeasure.f  g ԀTotheextentthatODellv. .'~"( CityofKnoxville,54Tenn.App.59,388S.W.2d150(1964),wouldcompelacontraryconclusion, (j#) itisexpresslyoverruled. )V$*   WefurtherholdthattheassessmentimposedbytheChattanoogaCityCourtinCityofChattanooga *.&, v.Daviswaspunitiveinitsintendedpurposef  g f  g Ԁandthereforesubjecttoconstitutionallimitation.As +'- fortheassessmentsf  g ԀimposedinBarrettv.MetropolitanGovernment,weholdthattheactualpurpose ,(. andeffectoff  g allf  g thesesanctionsweretoimposepunishmentforf  g f  g ordinanceviolationsf  g .#@XX #XX@Therefore,the -(/ _judgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmedasmodifiedandexplainedbelowinDavisscase,and  thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversedinBarrettscase.Becausenocourt,otherthanone  ofgeneraljurisdiction,hasbeengrantedtheauthoritytoempanelajurytodeterminefactsorto  imposepunishment,wereducef  g eachoff  g theunlawfulfinesimposedinf  g f  g thesecasesf  g Ԁtofiftydollars,the t maximumf  g f  g assessmentf  g ԀallowedundersuchcircumstancesbyArticleVI,section14.#@XXv#XX@ ` WithregardtotheadditionalissuesraisedinCityofChattanoogav.Davis,weholdthatTennessee 8  CodeAnnotatedsection654306doesnotfaciallyviolateArticleVI,section14f  g f  g .#@XX#XX@Withregardtothe $ t allegationsthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections654306and5510307violatetheClass  ` LegislationClauseofArticleXI,section8,wedismissthechallengetosection654306asmoot#@XX#XX@.  L  Astosection5510307,weholdthatthisstatutedoesnotviolateArticleXI,section8forthesole  8  reasonsthatadistinctionismadebetweenmunicipalitiesandunincorporatedareasofthestateorthat $  differentpunishmentsmaybeimposedbysubstantiallysimilaroridenticaloffenses#@XXX#XX@.Finally,we   holdthatDavislackslegalstandingtochallengethepoliciesandpracticesoftheCityofChattanooga   thatarguablyinfringeupontheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsconstitutionalandstatutoryauthorityin   HamiltonCounty.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsf  g f  g ontheseissuesisaffirmedasmodified   herein. p  #@XX#f  g XX@Tenn.R.App.P.11ApplicationforPermissiontoAppeal; n JudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsAffirmedinPart,andAffirmedinPartasModified Z inCityofChattanoogav.Davis;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals F ReversedinBarrettv.MetropolitanGovernment#@XX;#XX@  2   #@X#XX.@WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredthef  g opinionofthecourt,f  g f  g inf  g Ԁwhichf  g ԀE.RileyAnderson,C.J.,and  Z FrankF.Drowota,III,AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder,JJ.f  g ,joined.f  g  F JerryH.Summers,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,KevinDavis.  #@XX/#XX@KennethO.Fritz,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CityofChattanooga.  JohnE.Herbison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,FrankBarrett.#@XXY#XX@ ~  KarlF.DeanandJohnL.Kennedy,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Metropolitan V"  GovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty. B#! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;PeterM. %j # Coughlan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#@XXJ#XX@ &V!$ #@XX"!#XX@JamesW.Kirby,Nashville,Tennessee,forAmicusCuriae,TennesseeDistrictAttorneysGeneral '.#& Conference. ($' @@OO& % | OPINION #@XXy!#XX@ +&* Ї#@XX"#XX@    Theprimaryissueintheseconsolidatedcasesiswhetheramonetaryassessmentimposedfor  theviolationofamunicipalordinanceissubjecttotheprovisionsofArticleVI,section14ofthe  TennesseeConstitution.Thissection,alsocommonlyknownastheFiftyDollarFinesClause,reads t asfollows: ` 8  NofineshallbelaidonanycitizenofthisStatethatshallexceedfiftydollars,unless 8  itshallbeassessedbyajuryofhispeers,whoshallassessthefineatthetimethey $ t findthefact,iftheythinkthefineshouldbemorethanfiftydollars. `   TheappellantinCityofChattanoogav.Davisalsoraisesthreeadditionalissues:(1)whether  8  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654306violatesArticleVI,section14,eitheronitsfaceoras $  appliedtothiscase;(2)whetherTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections654306and5510307violate   ArticleXI,section8oftheTennesseeConstitution,eitherontheirfaceorasappliedtothiscase;and   (3)whethertheCityofChattanoogahasusedsection5510307toinfringeupontheDistrict   AttorneyGeneralsconstitutionalandstatutoryauthorityassetforthinArticleVI,section5and   TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection87103.Abriefreviewoftherelevantfactsofeachofthese p caseswillservetoplacetheseissuesintheirpropercontext. \   &  % } CityofChattanoogav.Davis  4     OnDecember6,1998,aChattanoogaCitypoliceofficercitedtheappellant,KevinDavis, X forrecklessdrivinginviolationofChattanoogaCityCodesectionf  g f  g 2413(a)f  g . +#  1      ׀Theappellantwas'4) D orderedtoappearbeforetheChattanoogaCityCourt,andonJanuary12,1999,hepleadedguiltyand 0 receivedathreehundreddollarfine.Therecordcontainsnoevidencethatthecourtadvisedthe  appellantofanyrightsunderArticleVI,section14oftheTennesseeConstitutionf  g Ԁorthathewaived  anysuchrightsbeforeenteringhisplea.    TheappellantthenfiledatimelypetitionbeforetheHamiltonCountyCriminalCourt, | requestingdismissalofthechargesagainsthimonthreeprimarygrounds:(1)thatthethreehundred h dollarpenaltyimposedbytheCityCourtviolatedArticleVI,section14;(2)thatTennesseeCode T  Annotatedsection654306 +#  2      ׀andChattanoogaCityCodesection18(a), +#  3      ׀whichbothpermittheCity @! ,@ ,  ,  toimpose monetarypenaltiesinamountsuptofivehundreddollars,violateArticleVI,section14;  and(3)thatsection654306violatestheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentand  theClassLegislationClauseofArticleXI,section8oftheTennesseeConstitution.d +#  4      ׀Afterholding  ahearingontheseissuesonJune21,thecriminalcourtheldthatthecitycourtsthreehundreddollar t assessmentviolatedArticleVI,section14oftheTennesseeConstitution,anditreducedthe ` appellantspenaltytofiftydollars.ThecriminalcourtalsoupheldtheconstitutionalityofTennessee L  CodeAnnotatedsection654306andChattanoogaCityCodesection18(a). 8    OnJuly14,1999,thecriminalcourtissuedanorderenjoiningtheCityfromimposing  ` monetarypenaltiesinexcessoffiftydollars.\ +#  5      ׀WhentheCitymovedtodissolveormodifythe  L  injunction,theappellantaskedthecourtto clarifyitspositionf  g f  g concerningf  g Ԁtheconstitutionalityof  8  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654306. +#  6      ׀Theappellantalsoformallychallengedthe $  constitutionalityofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510307, +#  7      ׀whichpermitsmunicipalitiesto   P     adoptbyreferencecertainstateoffensesascityordinances,asviolativeoftheClassLegislation  ClauseandoftheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsauthorityunderArticleVI,section5. +#  8      ׀Thecourt  postponedthehearingonthematters,anditpermittedtheAttorneyGeneraltodefendthe  constitutionalityofthesestatutes. t   AfterholdinghearingsonAugust13andSeptember17,thecriminalcourtissuedanopinion L  infavoroftheappellant,concludingasfollows:(1)thattheappellantdidnotexecuteawritten 8  waiverofhisrighttotrialbyjury,andtherefore,thefineimposedcouldnotexceedfiftydollars;(2) $ t thatasapplied,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654306violatestheFourteenthAmendment  ` andArticleXI,section8,because [t]hereisnoreasonablebasisorcriteriabywhich[homerule  L  municipalities]canbeconsideredasaclassdifferentfromothermunicipalitiesorunincorporated  8  areasoftheState;(3)thatasapplied,TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510307deniescitizens $  theequalprotectionofthelawandinfringesupontheconstitutionalandstatutoryauthorityofthe   DistrictAttorneyGeneraltoprosecuteviolationsofstatelaw;and(4)thatasenacted,CityCode   section18f  g f  g (a)violatesf  g ԀTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection654306f  g f  g Ԁbecauseitfailsf  g Ԁtosetmaximum   penaltiesofthirtydaysimprisonment,f  g f  g becauseitstatesf  g Ԁthatviolationsofmunicipalordinances shall   bepunishedbyamonetarypenalty,(emphasisinoriginal),andf  g f  g becauseitdoesf  g Ԁnotf  g f  g limitf  g Ԁany p penaltiestothosenecessarytorecoveradministrativeexpenses. \   TheCityofChattanoogaappealedthesefindingstotheCourtofAppeals,whichreversedthe 4 criminalcourtanddissolvedtheinjunction.Astotheproperamountofthefine,amajorityofthe  p intermediatecourtfoundthatthecitycourtdidnotviolateArticleVI,section14byimposingathree  \ hundreddollarfine.Inathoroughexaminationofthenatureofmunicipalcourtproceedings,the H courtconcludedthatassessmentsimposedforamunicipalordinanceviolationarenot fineswithin 4 themeaningofArticleVI,section14.Interestingly,however,whilethemajorityheldthatthethree   hundreddollarsanctionimposedbythecitycourtwasnotinviolationofArticleVI,section14,it   neverthelessaffirmedthecriminalcourtsreductionofthefineasbeingwithinthepenaltyrangeof  CityCodesection18f  g (a)f  g .Althoughthemajorityhadmisgivingsaboutf  g f  g itsf  g Ԁholdingf  g Ԁonthisissuef  g ,it  believedthatCityofChattanoogav.Myers,787S.W.2d921(Tenn.1990),andODellv.Cityof  Knoxville,388S.W.2d150(Tenn.Ct.App.1964),compelleditsresult. l  X    Writingindissent,JudgeFranksstatedthatthethreehundreddollarassessmentwasclearly  a finewithinthemeaningofArticleVI,section14,asitcarriedwithitmanyattributesof  punishment.JudgeFranksalsodisagreedwiththemajoritysapplicationofMyersandODell,  findingthatthesecaseswerecontradictedbyMetropolitanGovernmentv.Miles,524S.W.2d656 t (Tenn.1975),andOHaverv.Montgomery,120Tenn.448,111S.W.449(1908).Allthreejudges ` agreed,however,thatthelawinthisareaneededtobeclarified. L    WithrespecttotheotherissuesraisedbytheCity,themajorityoftheCourtofAppealsfound $ t thatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections654306and5510307wereconstitutionalf  g f  g onf  g Ԁtheirf  g f  g face  ` andasappliedf  g .Withrespectto654306,thecourtheldthatareasonablebasisexistsfor  L  distinguishingbetweenmunicipalitiesandunincorporatedareas,becausemunicipalitieshave a  8  uniqueinterestinaddressingprohibitedconductthatoccurswithin[their]geographicborders. $  Addressingsection5510307,themajorityheldthatcitiesmayimposepenaltiesdifferentfrom   thoseimposedbystatelaw"evenwhentheelementsoftheordinancearesubstantiallysimilarto   thosefoundinastateoffense"tofurthertheirowninterestinregulatingtheuseoftheirstreets.The   majorityalsoheldthatthisstatutedidnotf  g f  g infringeuponf  g Ԁthef  g ԀDistrictAttorneysconstitutionalor   statutoryauthoritytoprosecutestatecrimesbecausetherecordcontainednoevidenceofa policy p andpracticebytheCitytocite allthosewhoviolatestatetrafficlawsf  g f  g withinf  g ԀtheCitysbordersto \ thecitycourttobetriedforviolatingacityordinance....(emphasisinoriginal). H   WethengrantedDavissapplicationforpermissiontoappeal.  p   %  &  Barrettv.MetropolitanGovernment  H \P  OverthecourseofelevenmonthsfromApril1995toMarch1996,theMetropolitan  GovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty( MetropolitanGovernment)servedfivecivil'xP  warrantsontheappellant,FrankBarrett,allegingvariousviolationsofTitle16oftheMetropolitan  CodeofLaws.Morespecifically,threeofthesewarrantschargedthattheappellant,whoisthesole  ownerofabusinessthatinstallspreparedroofcoverings,failedtoobtainnecessarybuildingpermits | beforereplacingseveralroofs.Oneotherwarrantallegedthatheimproperlyinstalledroof h underlayment,andthefinalwarrantallegedthathefailedtocomplywithastopworkorder. +#  9      ׀ T    AsinglehearingoneachofthesefivewarrantswasheldbeforetheGeneralSessionsCourt ,"|  forDavidsonCountyonFebruary20,1998f  g f  g .Atthishearing,f  g ԀtheMetropolitanGovernmentsought #h! themaximumassessmentoffivehundreddollarsforeachviolation,asf  g ispermittedbyf  g f  g currentf  g ԀCode $T" ofLawssection16.04.172(A).Afterhearingtestimonyandargumentsofcounsel,thegeneral $@ # sessionscourtfound byclearandconvincingevidencethatthedefendant[was]guiltyofthecharges %,!$ assetout,anditimposedaf  g f  g finef  g Ԁoffivehundreddollars,pluscourtcosts,fortheviolationofeach &"% warrant.Priortothishearing,theappellantunsuccessfullydemandedajurytrial,andhespecifically  declinedtowaiveanyrightsunderArticleVI,section14oftheTennesseeConstitution.    Thereafter,theappellantsoughtandobtainedawritofcertiorarifromtheDavidsonCounty t CircuitCourttoreviewwhetherthegeneralsessionscourthadexceededitsjurisdictionbyimposing ` finesinexcessoffiftydollars.TheCircuitCourtfoundthatthegeneralsessionscourthadinfact L  exceededitsjurisdiction,anditbasedthisfindinginlargepartontheparticularterminologyused 8  bytheCodeofLawsf  g f  g tolabelf  g Ԁthepenaltiesimposedforviolations: $ t 8   ` TheCourtfindsthatitmustplacesomevalidityintheCouncilschoiceof  L  words.Theveryfoundationorthebasicsofstatutoryconstructionmandatethata  8  courtmustpayattentionf  g tof  g theplainmeaningofwhatalegislativebody $  says....TheCourtrecognizesthatthereisadistinctionbetweentheuseofthe   word,penalty,inthelaw,andtheuseoftheword,fine.    8   ` TheMetropolitanCouncil,thelegislativebodyhereintheMetropolitan   Government,forwhateverreason,chosetousetheword,fine.TheCourtthinksthat   theyareboundbythatchoice.p     TheMetropolitanGovernmentappealedthisfindingtotheCourtofAppeals.The H intermediatecourtreversedthecircuitcourt,concludingthatthelabelattachedtotheassessmentwas 4 immaterialtowhetheranassessmentwaswithinthescopeofArticleVI,section14.Instead,the  p f  g f  g courtf  g Ԁheldthatbecauseproceedingstorecoverfinesfortheviolationoff  g af  g municipalf  g f  g ordinancef  g Ԁhave  \ largelybeenconsideredf  g Ԁtobef  g Ԁinthenatureofacivildebt,noassessmentarisingoutofthese H proceedingsf  g f  g couldf  g Ԁbef  g f  g subjecttolimitationbyf  g ԀtheFiftyDollarFinesClause.Thecourtwasalsoof 4 theopinionthatBarrettcouldhaveavoidedthisissuehadheappealedthejudgmentofthegeneral   sessionscourt"insteadofproceedingbywritofcertiorari"fortrialdenovobeforeajury.     WethengrantedBarrettsapplicationforpermissiontoappealonthesoleissueofwhether  theassessmentsbytheDavidsonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtwere fineswithinthemeaning  ofArticleVI,section14.ThiscasewasconsolidatedforargumentwithCityofChattanoogav. l Davis,inwhichwealsograntedpermissiontoappealontheremainingissuesaddressedbytheCourt X  ofAppeals. +#  10      ׀Forthereasonsgivenherein,weholdthatproceedingsinvolvingtheviolationofa D! municipalordinancemaybesubjecttothelimitationsofArticleVI,section14whenf  g eitherthe 0"  intendedpurposeortheactualpurposeoreffectoff  g themonetaryassessmentf  g f  g isf  g Ԁtoserveasapunitive  measure.WithrespecttoDavisscase,wefurtherholdthatthethreehundreddollarassessmentwas  intendedtoserveasapunitivesanctionandthathisfinemustbereducedtofiftydollars.With  regardtoBarrettscase,weholdthattheactualpurposeandeffectofthesesanctionsweretof  g f  g punish t theviolationsf  g ԀoftheCodeofLawsandthatthesefivefinesmustalsobereducedtofiftydollarseach. ` Therefore,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmedasmodifiedinDavisscase,andthe L  judgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisreversedinBarrettscase.Withrespecttotheremainingissues 8  inDavisscase,wefindthatnonewarrantsjudicialrelief,andweaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourt $ t ofAppeals,asmodifiedherein.  `   %  &  I.APPLICATIONOFARTICLEVI,SECTION14TOPROCEEDINGS  8  FORTHEVIOLATIONOFAMUNICIPALORDINANCE  $  k  ThecommonissuepresentedbybothDavisandBarrettiswhetheramonetaryassessment   imposedfortheviolationofamunicipalordinanceissubjecttotheprovisionsofArticleVI,section' k   14oftheTennesseeConstitution.Althoughwehavehadseveralpreviousopportunitiestoexamine   theFiftyDollarFinesClauseinitsvariousaspects,wehaveyettoanalyzeitseffectwithinthe p specificcontextofaproceedingforamunicipalordinanceviolation.Therefore,becausethisisan \ issueoffirstimpressionforthisCourt,itisperhapshelpfultofirstexaminethehistorical H backgroundofthisimportantconstitutionalprovision. 4   %  &  A.HISTORICALBACKGROUNDOFARTICLEVI,SECTION14  \ o  ArticleVI,section14isuniqueinthewholeofAmericanconstitutionallaw,andnoother 4 provisionlikeitmaybefoundeitherintheFederalConstitutionorinanyothermodernstate' o   constitution.AlthoughthisprovisiondatestoourfirstConstitutionsignedinKnoxvilleinFebruary   1796,weknowlittleelseaboutitsorigin.Similarclausesdidnotappearinanycolonialcharter,in  anyearlystateconstitution,includingthe1776NorthCarolinaConstitution,orintheConstitution  oftheStateofFranklin. +#  11      ׀    Instead,astheJournalofthe1796ConstitutionalConventionreveals,theFiftyDollarFines X  Clausemadeitsfirstappearanceinthejurisprudenceofthisf  g f  g statef  g ԀonSaturday,January30,1796, D! whenitwasappendedtoaproposeddraftconstitutionassection9ofthearticlegoverningthe 0"  judiciary.Asoriginallyproposed,thisprovisionread: Nofineshallbelaidonanycitizenofthis #l! state,thatshallexceedfiftydollars,unlessitshallbeassessedbyajuryofhispeers,whoshallassess $X" thefineatthetimetheyfindthefact.Tenn.Const.art.V,9(1796draft).ThoughtheJournalof $D # the1796Conventionwasnotkeptasaverbatimrecordoftheproceedings,nodiscussionordebate  concerningthedraftofthisclauseisevident.Indeed,thefinalprovisionissuingfromthe  Conventionwaspreciselythesameasthatinitiallyproposed,exceptthatitwasamendedatsome  pointtoaddafinalclause, ifthey[thejury]thinkthefineoughttobemorethanfiftydollars. t Tenn.Const.art.V,11(1796). +#  12       `   Duringthesummerof1834,sixtydelegatesmetinNashville forthepurposeofrevisingand 8  amendingtheConstitution,whichhadremainedunalteredfornearlyfourdecades.Aprovision $ t identicaltoArticleV,section11ofthe1796ConstitutionwasreportedtotheCommitteeofthe  ` WholeonJuly25forconsideration,andthisprovisionwasconsideredbytheConventiononAugust  L  6.Instarkcontrasttovirtuallyeveryotherprovisiongoverningthejudiciary,theFiftyDollarFines  8  Clausereceivedscantattention.AlthoughoneamendmentwasproposedbyWilliamLedbetterof $  RutherfordCounty"theadditionofafinalsentence, [a]ndifthedefendantshallsubmit,itshallnot   preventthecourtfromempanelingajuryinstantertoassessthefineifitshouldseempropertosaid   court"itwasdefeated,andtheConventionadoptedtheprovisionasoriginallyproposed.Inits   finalform,theFiftyDollarFinesClauseappearedinArticleVI,section14ofthenewConstitution,   withonlytwononsubstantivechangestoitsformertext:(1)thecapitalizationof Stateinthefirst p clauseoftheprovision,and(2)thesyntacticalamendmentofthefinalclausetoread, iftheythink \ thefineshouldbeoverfiftydollars.(emphasisadded). H   FollowingtheWarBetweentheStates,Tennesseeentereditspresentconstitutionalperiod  p followinganothermajorconventionheldinNashvilleduringthewinterof1870.Givenits  \ unobtrusivehistory,itisperhapsnotsurprisingthatArticleVI,section14wasreadoptedwithoutany H recordeddebateorproposedamendment.AlthoughtheStandingCommitteeontheJudiciary 4 proposedmanyrevisionstoArticleVIinitsreporttotheConvention,thef  g 1870f  g Journalrecordsthat   neitherthemajoritynortheminorityreportsfromthatcommitteeadvisedchanginganypartof   section14.WhentheConventionconsideredthisprovisiononFebruary4,theJournalmerely  reports,againinstarkcontrasttotheotherprovisionsofArticleVI,that Section14wasadopted  asrecommendedbythe[Judiciary]Committee.Consequently,theFiftyDollarFinesClause  emergedfromthe1870ConventioninaformidenticaltothatratifiedearlierinMarch1835,save l onlyminorchangesinitspunctuation,andithasremainedunchangedtothisday. X    Interestingly,priortothecurrentconstitutionalperiodbeginningin1870,nocaseconstrued 0"  ordiscussedthesubstantiveimportoftheFiftyDollarFinesClause.In1873,thisCourtfirstnoted #l! thatArticleVI,section14is manifestlyanamplificationoftheprovisionscontainedin[section] $X" 16,[article]1,againsttheimpositionofexcessivefines.Francev.State,65Tenn.(6Baxt.)478, $D # 485(1873);seealsoStatev.Bryant,805S.W.2d762,767(Tenn.1991).Sincethen,thisCourthas  furtherrecognizedthattheintentbehindlimitingtheabilitytolayfines wastopreventjudgesfrom  imposingunreasonablefines,andtopreventconfiscationofthecitizenssubstanceundertheguise  ofastatuteappliedbyajudicialtribunal.Upchurchv.State,153Tenn.198,205,281S.W.462, t 464(1926);seealsoStatev.Martin,940S.W.2d567,570(Tenn.1997).Indeed,asthisCourt ` observedinPoindexterv.State,137Tenn.386,393,193S.W.126,128(1917),f  g f  g [w]eref  g Ԁitnotfor L  section14ofarticle6oftheConstitution,animpecuniousdefendantuponwhomalargefinehad 8  beenimposedmightbeimprisonedforyearsatthewillofthejudgealonewhotriedhim. $ t   Nevertheless,asthisCourthasacknowledgedfornearlyacentury,therestrictionon  L  imposing finescontainedinArticleVI,section14doesnotpreventacourtfromimposingany  8  monetaryassessmentinexcessoffiftydollars.Atthetimethatthe1796Constitutionwasdrafted $  andratified,theterm finewasunderstoodtomean apaymenttoasovereignaspunishmentfor   someoffense,seeBrowningFerrisIndustriesofVt.,Inc.v.KelcoDisposal,492U.S.257,265   (1989), +#  13      ׀andasweheldlongagoinPoindexter,ArticleVI,section14doesnotapplytoassessments   greaterthanfiftydollarswhentheassessmentisnotpunitiveinnature.Tothatend,ArticleVI,   section14hasnotstoodasabartotheimpositionofnonpunitivemeasures,suchasrequiringa p defendanttoexecutea$240bondtosecurechildsupportpayments,f  g seePoindexter,137Tenn.at \ 39697,193S.W.at128,f  g Ԁorrequiringthatadefendantmakemonthlysupportpaymentsofsixty H dollars,f  g ԀseeAbbottv.State,190Tenn.702,704,231S.W.2d355,356(1950). 4   %  &  B.ARTICLEVI,SECTION14ANDPROCEEDINGSINVOLVINGTHE  \ VIOLATIONOFAMUNICIPALORDINANCE H   GiventhatArticleVI,section14hasbeenheldtomakeasubstantivedistinctionbetween   punitiveandnonpunitiveassessments,asignificantquestionhasbeenpresentedastowhetherthe'    FiftyDollarFinesClauseappliestosanctionsimposedfortheviolationofamunicipalordinance.  BothpanelsoftheCourtofAppealsinthesetwocasesbelievedthatArticleVI,section14doesnot  applytoproceedingsformunicipalordinanceviolationsbecausetheseproceedingsareusually  consideredtobecivilinnature.Thisviewisnotwithoutsomesupport,andasevenabriefreview l ofthecaselawreveals,muchinkhasbeenspilled,inliterallyscoresofcases,todelineatetheprecise X  natureandobjectofmunicipalcourtproceedings. D!   0"    SinceourdecisioninCityofChattanoogav.Myers,787S.W.2d921(Tenn.1990),thelaw   nowappearssettledthatproceedingsforamunicipalordinanceviolationarecivilinnature,atleast  intermsoftechnicalapplicationofprocedureandforpursuingavenuesofappeal.Outsidetechnical  procedureandappeal,however,substantialconflictmaystillbefoundastothecharacterizationof t thesubstantivenatureoftheproceeding.Indeed,dependinguponthepreciseissuebeforethe ` particularcourt,proceedingsforamunicipalordinanceviolationhavebeenf  g f  g describedf  g Ԁas civilin L  character,CityofMemphisv.Smythe,104Tenn.702,703,58S.W.215,215(1900);as 8   partak[ing]moreorlessofacivilwrong,Hillv.Stateexrel.Phillips,216Tenn.503,507,392 $ t S.W.2d950,952(1965);as partlycriminal,OHaverv.Montgomery,120Tenn.448,460,111  ` S.W.449,452(1908);andas criminalratherthancivilinsubstance,MetropolitanGovtv.Miles,  L  524S.W.2d656,660(Tenn.1975).  8    Despitethesenumerousandvaryingcharacterizations,however,theopinionsofbothpanels   belowreliedheavilyuponODellv.CityofKnoxville,54Tenn.App.59,388S.W.2d150(1964),   whichrepresentstheonlyreportedcasethathasf  g directlyaddressedtheeffectofArticleVI,section   14f  g f  g uponf  g Ԁproceedingsinvolvingamunicipalordinanceviolation.InODell,thedefendantwas   convictedofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantandwasfinedonehundreddollars p f  g f  g byf  g ԀtheKnoxvillemunicipalcourt.FollowinganunsuccessfulchallengetothefineintheKnox \ CountyCircuitCourtasviolativeofArticleVI,section14,thedefendantfiledadirectappealtothis H Court.Weheldthatbecausecivilpracticegovernsproceedingsforamunicipalordinanceviolation 4 intermsofprocedureandappeal,jurisdictionforthedirectappealwasmoreproperlywiththeCourt  p ofAppeals.SeeODellv.CityofKnoxville,214Tenn.237,240,379S.W.2d756,758(1964).We  \ thentransferredthecasebyordertotheintermediatecourt. H   BeforetheCourtofAppeals,thedefendantagainchallengedtheonehundreddollarfineas   violativeofArticleVI,section14,buttheintermediatecourtdisagreedfortworeasons.First,the   courtbelievedthatbecausetheKnoxvillecityordinanceitselfcharacterizeditssanctionfordriving  undertheinfluenceasa penalty,andnotasa fine,thelimitationsofArticleVI,section14  simplydidnotapply.SeeODell,54Tenn.App.at63,388S.W.2dat152.Second,itreasonedthat  becauseaproceedingfortheviolationofamunicipalordinancehaslongbeenheldtobeacivil l action,nocriminalsanctioncouldhavebeenimposed,andhence,theconstitutionallimitationon X   fineswasinapplicable.Seeid.at64,388S.W.2dat152.Consequently,theODellcourtupheld D! theonehundreddollarfineasimposed. 0"    AlthoughbothpanelsoftheCourtofAppealsinthecasesnowbeforeusbelievedthatODell $X" wasunwaveringinitsconclusionthatArticleVI,section14couldnotapplytoproceedings $D # involvingamunicipalordinanceviolation,acloserexaminationoftherationalesemployedbythe %0!$ ODellCourtrevealsthatitsanalysisofthisissueisseverelyflawed.First,andwithoutquestion, &"% theprecisenamegiventothesanctionishardlydeterminativeofitssubstantivepurposeoreffect, '#& andthismethodofconstitutionalinterpretationissimplyinadequatetoproperlyresolvethequestion (#' beforeustoday.AstheBardofAvonclassicallyandeloquentlyexpressedthesentiment, Whats )$( inaname?thatwhichwecallarose,Byanyothernamewouldsmellassweet.RomeoandJuliet, |*%) actII,sceneii.f  g f  g Indeed,iff  g Ԁoneneededonlytochangetheappellationofaconstitutionalprotection h+&* inordertoavoiditsuseasashieldagainstthepoweroftheState,onecouldscarcelyimaginethat  anysafeguardoflibertywouldbeworthitsrecitationinawrittenconstitution.    Second,theODellcourtexaltedtechnicalformoverconstitutionalsubstanceinamanner t rarelyseenelsewhere.Byholdingthatpunitivesanctions,suchasfines,canneverbeimposedin ` a civilaction,theODellCourtessentiallyaccordeddefinitiveconstitutionalsignificancetothe L  titlegivenalegalproceedingwhenconductinganalysisunderArticleVI,section14.SinceODell, 8  courtsthroughoutthelandhaveroutinelycondemnedthismethodofconstitutionalanalysis,andwe $ t expresslyrejecteditinMetropolitanGovernmentv.Miles,524S.W.2d656(Tenn.1975),whenwe  ` statedthat [p]reciousconstitutionalrightscannotbediminishedorwhittledawaybythedeviceof  L  changingnamesoftribunalsormodifyingthenomenclatureoflegalproceedings.Thetestmustbe  8  thenatureandtheessenceoftheproceedingratherthanitstitle.Id.at659(citationandinternal $  quotationmarksomitted). +#  14           Althoughtheintendedcharacteroftheproceedingmayberelevanttothenatureofasanction   imposedinthatproceeding,theODellCourtwasplainlymisguidedtotheextentthatitbelieveda   courtcouldnotimposeapunitivesanctionina civilaction.AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt p hasacknowledged, Thenotionofpunishment,aswecommonlyunderstandit,cutsacrossthe \ divisionbetweenthecivilandthecriminallaw.Itiscommonlyunderstoodthatcivilproceedings H mayadvancepunitiveaswellasremedialgoals,and,conversely,thatbothpunitiveandremedial 4 goalsmaybeservedbycriminalpenalties.Austinv.UnitedStates,509U.S.602,610(1993)  p (citationsandquotationsomitted).Moreover,ODellsrationalehasbeensubstantially,ifnot  \ entirely,abrogatedbyourrecognitionthatcivilproceedingsmayimposesanctionsthatare so H punitiveinformandeffectastotriggerconstitutionalprotections.SeeStuartv.StateDept.of 4 Safety,963S.W.2d28,33(Tenn.1998).Indeed,inthespecificcontextofa civilproceedingfor   amunicipalordinanceviolation,thisCourthasheldthattheimpositionofapecuniarysanction   triggerstheprotectionsofthedoublejeopardyclausetopreventasecond punishmentinthestate  courtsforthesameoffense.SeeMiles,524S.W.2dat660( Weholdthattheimpositionofafine  ispunishment.(emphasisinoriginal)).    Whenexaminedinthislight,itisclearthatODelldoesnotrepresentanaccuratestatement X  ofthelawregardingapplicationoftheFiftyDollarFinesClause.Therefore,totheextentthat D! ODellcompelstheconclusionthatf  g proceedingsinvolvingmunicipalordinanceviolationsareoutside 0"  thescopeoff  g ArticleVI,section14f  g ,itisexpresslyoverruled.BecauseArticleVI,section14is #l! concernedwiththepunitivepurposeoreffectofthesanctionsimposed,theproperinquirymustbe  whether,despitetheprimarycharacteroftheproceeding,thef  g purposeoreffectofthef  g monetary  assessmentisf  g Ԁtofurtherthegoalsofpunishment.Accordingly,whenanalyzingissuestouchingupon  theprotectionsofArticleVI,section14,wewillfavorthesubstanceofthesanctionoveritsform, t andwewillnotpermitthelanguageusedtodescribetheparticularsanctiontogovernthe ` constitutionalanalysis.SeeStatev.Martin,940S.W.2d567,570(Tenn.1997).Wealsorecognize L  thata finewithinthemeaningofArticleVI,section14maybeimposedinaproceedingthathas 8  beentraditionallyconsideredf  g Ԁtobef  g Ԁcivilinnature,andalthoughthenatureoftheproceedinginwhich $ t theassessmentisimposedmayberelevanttosomeaspectsoftheinquiry,itcannotsimplybethe  ` soleordeterminativefactor.  L    %  &  C.PROPERTESTTODETERMINEWHETHERARTICLEVI,SECTION14 $  APPLIESTOAMONETARYASSESSMENT       BecauseArticleVI,section14appliestoproceedingsinvolvingtheviolationofamunicipal'y   ordinancewhenthef  g monetarysanctionf  g f  g servesf  g Ԁpunitivegoals,wemustprovideguidanceastohow   toproperlydeterminethecharacteroftheassessmentitself.Fromtheoutset,weacknowledgethat p onlytherarecasewilladmitofsimpleresolution,andthesetwocasesinparticularillustratewellthe \ candidobservationprofferedbyonescholarthat [a]criminalfineandacivilfinedonot,bythevery H actoftheirimposition,distinguishthemselves. +#  15      ׀Indeed,althoughdistinguishingbetweenpunitive 4 andnonpunitivemeasuresmayhavebeenacomparativelysimpletaskin1796,ithassincebecome  p anincreasinglycomplexundertaking.Astheriseofthemodernadministrativestatehasobscured  \ thelineseparatingcriminalandcivilsanctions,manysanctionshavebecomeadmittedlydifficultto H characterizeasbeinginoneclassortheother.Forexample,many civilsanctionstodayseem 4 designed,atleastinpart,tof  g f  g furthersomegoalsoff  g Ԁpunishment,andstrictliabilitycriminaloffenses   aimedatprotectingthepublicwelfareareoftencloakedwithtrappingsthataretraditionally   associatedwithcivillaw.Nevertheless,despitetherigorandasperityofthetaskinvolved,Article  VI,section14stillcommandsthatsuchadistinctionbemade.    %  &  ExcessivefinesAnalysis l   f  g f  g Inordertodeterminethepropercharacterofanymonetaryassessmentf  g ,bothDavisand D! BarretthaveurgedthisCourttoadoptananalysissimilartothatusedtodeterminewhethera fine'$ 0"  isexcessiveunderArticleI,section16oftheTennesseeConstitutionandtheEighthAmendment. #l! Accordingtoexcessivefinesanalysisunderthestateandfederalconstitutions,anotherwisecivil $X" sanctioncanbecomea finesubjecttof  g constitutionalf  g limitationwhenthesanction is,atleastin $D # part,apunitivemeasure.Stuart,963S.W.2dat34;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Bajakajian,524U.S. %0!$ 321,329n.4(1998)(notingthatEighthAmendmentanalysisbeginswithafindingthatthecontested &"% sanction,thoughalsoservingsomeremedialpurpose,is punitiveinpart).f  g f  g AstheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtf  g Ԁhasacknowledged,asanctionf  g f  g isf  g Ԁ punitiveinpartunderthisanalysiswhenitserves  eitherretributiveordeterrentpurposes.SeeAustin,509U.S.at610.    ItistruethatArticleVI,section14hasbeencharacterizedasanextensionoftheExcessive ` FinesClauseofArticleI,section16,f  g see,e.g.,Bryant,805S.W.2dat767,f  g Ԁandtothisextent,the L  positiontakenbyDavisandBarrettseemsinitiallyappealing.Uponcloserexamination,though,we 8  cannotagreethatthisanalysisprovidestheappropriateframeworkforapplyingtheFiftyDollar $ t FinesClause.AscanbeseenbyourdecisioninStuart,excessivefinesanalysiscanbeappliedeven  ` tothosesanctionsthatprimarilyservef  g remedialf  g f  g purposesf  g .See963S.W.2dat34(analyzingcivil  L  forfeitures).However,excessivefinesanalysisdoesnotautomaticallycondemnallremedial  8  measuresmerelyforbeingpunitiveinpart,becauseitfurtherexamineswhetherthesanctionis $  proportionaltothegravityofthedefendantsconductandculpability.Id.at35;seealsoBajakajian,   524U.S.at334. +#  16      ׀Bymakingthisadditionalinquiryf  g Ԁintotheproportionalityofthefinef  g ,analysis   undertheExcessiveFinesClausesmakesappropriateallowanceforthosesanctionsthatprimarily   serveremedialpurposes.     Ifonlythefirsthalfoftheexcessivefinesanalysisisadopted,asDavisandBarrettadvocate, \ though,thennoallowancecanbemadeforthosemeasuresthatarepredominantlyremedialin H purpose.Allmonetarysanctions,eventhoseprincipallydesignedtofurtherremedialgoals,share 4 sometraditionalcharacteristicsofpunishment,suchasensuringdeterrenceagainstfuture  p wrongdoing.SeeStuart,963S.W.2dat34(citingHudsonv.UnitedStates,522U.S.93,102  \ (1997));f  g seealsof  g FriendsoftheEarth,Inc.v.LaidlawEnvtl.Servs.,Inc.,528U.S.167,185(2000). H f  g f  g Assuch,ifanassessmentissubjecttoconstitutionallimitationifitisonlyf  g Ԁ punitiveinf  g f  g part,then 4 f  g allf  g f  g Ԁmonetaryf  g f  g penalties,whetherf  g Ԁremedialorotherwise,f  g f  g wouldfallwithinf  g ԀthestricturesofArticleVI,   section14.However,becausef  g f  g theFiftyDollarFinesClausef  g Ԁdoesnotapplytothosemeasuresthat   serveprimarilyremedialgoals,seeAbbott,190Tenn.at704,231S.W.2dat356;Poindexter,137  Tenn.at39697,193S.W.at128,thismethodofanalysismaybetoobroadinitsapplicationto  providemuchpracticaluse.Therefore,because careshouldbeexercisednottoconvert  [constitutionalprotections]intoobstaclesthatpreventtheenactmentofhonestly-motivatedremedial l legislationbysubjectinglawstotestsunsuitedtotheunderlyingpurposeoftheseconstitutional X  provisions,Doev.Poritz,662A.2d367,388(N.J.1995),wef  g f  g declinef  g Ԁtoadoptthetestasproposed D! bytheappellants. 0"    %  &  FinesasPunishmentAnalysis $X" t  Ratherthanadoptanapproachthatseemstoapplywhenthesanctionisonlypunitiveinpart, %0!$ thebetterapproachmaybeonethatismoreinlinewiththepurposesofArticleVI,section14.As'' &"% westatedearlier,theFiftyDollarFinesClauserestrictstheabilityofajudgetoimposeaparticular '#& formofpunishment,seeMartin,940S.W.2dat570,andassuch,thefocusofanytestshouldbe  uponwhetherthepecuniarysanctionwasimposedtoserveprimarilyasapunitivemeasure.  Therefore,otherconstitutionalteststhatexaminewhetheraparticularsanctionispunitiveinpurpose  shouldprovideformoremeaningfulanalysis. t   Thisisnotthefirstcaseinwhichwehavedeterminedwhetherasanctionispredominantly L  punitiveorremedialinnature.InthecontextofdoublejeopardyanalysisunderArticleI,section10, 8  wehaveadoptedatestsimilartothatusedinthefederalcourtstodeterminewhetherasecondaction $ t issufficientlypunitivesoastoconstituteasecondpunishmentforthesameoffense.SeeStuart,963  ` S.W.2dat32.Underthisanalysis,asanctionisdeemedtoconstitutepunishmentif(1)the  L  legislativebodyintendedthatthesanctionhaveapunitivepurposeoreffect;or(2)the clearest  8  proofdemonstratesthatthesanctionis sopunitiveinfactthat[it]cannotlegitimatelybeviewed $  ascivilinnature.Id.(citingUnitedStatesv.Ursery,518U.S.267,288(1996)).Asoneothercourt   hasphrasedtheessentialcharacteristicsofanidenticalinquiry,   8  Thus,thedeterminingfactorofwhetherasanctioniscriminalorcivilisnot   necessarilythelabelgivenitbythelegislature;ratheracourtconfrontedwitha p challengetoanominallycivilproceedingandsanctionmustexaminewhetherthe \ sanctionissopunitiveineffectthatitcannolongerbesaidtoservetheremedial H purposesofacivilsanction.4   Statev.Hurst,688N.E.2d402,404(Ind.1997)(citing,amongothers,Ursery,518U.S.at288).  \   Uponcarefulconsideration,webelievethatthetestadoptedinStuartprovidesamore 4 appropriateframeworkinwhichtodeterminewhetheramonetaryassessmentissufficientlypunitive   soastofallwithintherestrictionsofArticleVI,section14.Thistestfocusesupontheintendedf  g f  g andf  g    actualpurposeoreffectofthepenaltyitself,insteadofuponthecharacteroftheproceedinginwhich  thepenaltyisimposed;itdoesnotgivedeterminativeeffecttothelabelattachedtothesanction;and  itsufficientlyallowsremedialsanctionstobegiveneffect,f  g f  g eventhoughf  g Ԁsuchsanctionsmayalso  carrysometraditionallypunitiveconsequencessuchasdeterrence.Accordingly,weholdthata l monetarysanctionimposedforamunicipalordinanceviolationfallswithinthescopeofArticleVI, X  section14when:(1)thelegislativebodycreatingthesanctionprimarilyintendedthatthesanction D! punishtheoffenderfortheviolationofanordinance;or(2)despiteevidenceofremedialintent,the 0"  monetarysanctionisshownbythe clearestprooftobesopunitiveinitsactualpurposeoreffect #l! thatitcannotlegitimatelybeviewedasremedialinnature. $X" f  g f  g   Havingadoptedf  g ԀtheStuarttestf  g ԀtoanalyzeissuesarisingunderArticleVI,section14,f  g f  g thef  g ԀState %0!$ urgesthisCourttof  g alsof  g adopttheseven guidepostsusedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin &"% Hudsonv.UnitedStates,522U.S.93,102(1997),todeterminewhetherastatutoryschemef  g f  g isf  g  '#& punitiveinitsactualpurposeoreffectf  g .Thesefactors,whichwereoriginallyarticulatedbythe (#' SupremeCourtinKennedyv.MendozaMartinez,372U.S.144(1963),andwhichhavesincebeen )$( adoptedbyseveralotherjurisdictions,include, |*%)  h+&* 8  (1) [w]hetherthesanctioninvolvesanaffirmativedisabilityorrestraint;(2)   whetherithashistoricallybeenregardedasapunishment;(3) whetheritcomes  intoplayonlyonafindingofscienter;(4) whetheritsoperationwillpromotethe  traditionalaimsofpunishment-retributionanddeterrence;(5) whetherthebehavior t towhichitappliesisalreadyacrime;(6) whetheranalternativepurposetowhich ` itmayrationallybeconnectedisassignableforit;and(7) whetheritappears L  excessiveinrelationtothealternativepurposeassigned.8    Hudson,522U.S.at99100(citationsomittedandalterationinoriginal).f  g f  g   `   Severalcourtshavefoundthesefactorstobeofverylittlepracticaluse,see,e.g.,f  g ԀPoritz,662  8  A.2dat40001f  g f  g ;f  g ԀOpinionoftheJustices,668N.E.2d738,750(Mass.1996)f  g f  g ,andwedeclinef  g Ԁtoadopt $  thesefactorsforanalysisunderArticleVI,section14f  g f  g largelyf  g Ԁbecausetheydonotf  g f  g adequatelyseparate   punitivepenaltiesfromthosethatareremedialintheiractualf  g Ԁpurposeoreffect.Forexample,   althoughmonetarypenaltiesdonotinvolveaffirmativedisabilitiesorrestraints,thisisnottosaythat   theactualpurposeofthepenaltymustthereforeberemedial.Second,f  g asevidencedbytheFifty   DollarFinesClauseitself,f  g monetarypenaltieshavebeentraditionallyregardedinthisstateas p punishmentinsomeinstances,butnotf  g inf  g othersf  g .Assuch,thisf  g secondf  g factorrevealsf  g f  g littlef  g Ԁastof  g f  g a \ penaltysf  g Ԁactualpurposeoreffectf  g Ԁwithinanygivenstatutoryscheme.Third,f  g f  g examinationoff  g Ԁscienter H f  g failsf  g Ԁtheobjectoff  g Ԁtheinquiry,becausemanystrictliabilitycriminaloffensesarepunishedbyfines. 4 f  g f  g Likewisef  g ,askingwhetherthef  g prohibitedf  g Ԁconductf  g Ԁisalsoacrimeignoresthefactthatafinecanstill  p beremedialifitservestocorrectorrectifyaviolation.Finally,askingwhetherthepenaltyserves  \ thetraditionalgoalsofpunishmentisineffective,because,aswehaverecognized,deterrenceis H presentineverymonetarypenalty,irrespectiveofwhetherthepenaltyisactuallyf  g f  g remedialf  g Ԁinits 4 purposeoreffect.     Consequently,ratherthanadoptthesesevenfactorsforanalysisunderthesecondprongof  theStuarttestastheStateurges,weconcludethatthe clearestproofofpunitivepurposeoreffect  ismoreproperlyestablishedf  g byconsideringwhetherthetotalityofthecircumstancesdemonstrates  thatthestatutoryschemetrulyenvisionsthepecuniarysanctionasservingtoremedyortocorrect l aviolation.f  g f  g Examinationoftheroleofthepenaltywithinf  g f  g itsparticularf  g Ԁstatutoryschemeis X  important,because,unlikeanalysisundertheExcessiveFinesClause,seeBrowningFerrisIndus. D! ofVt.,Inc.,492U.S.at275,thefocusofArticleVI,section14isuponthepunitivenatureofthe 0"  sanction,notuponthepersonalimpactofthepunishmenttothedefendant.Accordingly,inthose #l! casesinwhichapecuniarysanctionwasoriginallyintendedtoberemedial,courtsshouldfurther $X" examinetheactualpurposeoreffectofthesanctionwithinthecontextofitsentirestatutoryscheme $D # todeterminewhetherthesanctiontrulyfunctionsasaremedialmeasure. %0!$ &    % z D.APPLICATIONTOCITYOFCHATTANOOGAv.DAVIS '#& L  ApplyingthisframeworkofanalysistoCityofChattanoogav.Davis,ourfirstinquiryisto )$( determinewhetherthef  g intendedf  g f  g purposeoff  g Ԁthemonetarysanctionimposedforrecklessdrivingf  g f  g isto |*%) ''@punishviolationsofthelawf  g .Because [t]herulesofstatutoryinterpretationare[also]usedwhen h+&* interpretinganordinance,Gleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp.,15S.W.3d799,802(Tenn.2000);  seealsoLogginsv.Lightner,897S.W.2d698,702(Tenn.Ct.App.1994f  g ),wedeterminetheintent  andpurposeofanordinanceprimarilyfromthelanguageused.Wealsoendeavortoreadan  ordinanceasawholeand inconjunctionwith[its]surroundingparts.SeeStatev.Turner,913 t S.W.2d158,160(Tenn.1995);seealso421Corp.v.MetropolitanGovt,36S.W.3d469,475 ` (Tenn.Ct.App.2000)(statingruleintermsofinterpretingazoningordinance). L    ExaminingtherelevanttextualprovisionsoftheChattanoogaCityCode,littledoubtcanexist $ t thattheintendedpurposeofthepenaltyimposedonDavisforrecklessdrivingwastopunishforthe  ` violationoftheordinance.ChattanoogaCityCodesection2413(b)setsforththepenaltyfor  L  recklessdriving:  8  8  Everypersonconvictedofrecklessdrivingshallbepunisheduponthefirst   convictionbyafineofnotlessthanfivedollars($5.00),onasecondconvictionby   afineofnotlessthantendollars($10.00),onathirdconvictionbyafineofnotless   thantwenty-fivedollars($25.00)andonallsubsequentconvictionsbyafineofnot   lessthanfiftydollars($50.00).p   Astheplainlanguageoftheordinanceshows,theintendedpurposeofthepenaltyistopunishthe H offender,andthelanguagedoesnototherwisesuggestanyremedialpurposetobeservedbythefine. 4 Theordinancefurtherprovidesthatthepenaltyistobeappliedonlyaftera convictionofthe  p offense,furtherindicatingthatthesanctionisintendedtopunish.Indeed,asthisordinancewell  \ illustrates,nomorepersuasiveevidenceofanintenttopunishmaybefoundexceptthroughexpress H languagetothiseffect. 4   Thisconclusiondoesnotendourinquiry,however,becausetheChattanoogaCityCourt   imposedthefineofthreehundreddollarsundersection18(a)oftheCityCode,insteadofimposing  afinepursuanttosection2413(b). +#  17      ׀ChattanoogaCityCodesection18(a)providesthat  8  [w]hereverinthisCodeorinanyordinanceorruleorregulationpromulgatedbyany l officerofthecityunderauthorityvestedinhimbylaworordinance,anyactis X  prohibitedorisdeclaredtobeunlawfuloramisdemeanor,orthedoingofanyactis D! required,orthefailuretodoanyactisdeclaredtobeunlawful,theviolationofany 0"  suchprovisionofthisCodeoranysuchordinance,ruleorregulationshallbe #l! punishedbyamonetarypenaltyandforfeiturenotexceedingfivehundreddollars $X" ($500.00).$D #   ЇAgain,theintendedpurposeofthisprovision,plainonitsfacethroughthelanguageused,isclearly  topunishtheoffenderfortheviolationofanordinance.Althougha monetarypenaltyf  g canbe  imposedforremedialpurposesinsomecircumstances,wef  g f  g findf  g Ԁnosuchapparentpurposeorintent  f  g presentf  g inthissection.Rather,asappliedtotheoffenseofrecklessdrivinginthiscase,theclearly t intendedpurposeoftheCityCouncilinenactingthefinewastoimposepunishment. `   InitsanalysisofChattanoogaCityCodesection18(a),amajorityofthejudgesonthepanel 8  belowconcludedthattheCityCouncilschoiceoflanguageinthissectionwasinsignificant.Citing $ t Barrettv.MetropolitanGovernment,theintermediatecourtstatedthatthe [t]hefactthattheCity  ` chosetousethelanguagepunishedbyamonetarypenaltydoesnotalterthecivilnatureofthe  L  penaltyimposed.f  g ԀWeagreef  g Ԁthatthef  g f  g languageofsection18(a)doesnotaffectthecharacterofthe  8  proceedingsinwhichthefineisimposed.However,thecharacteroftheproceedingsislargely $  irrelevanttof  g ԀthesubstantiveanalysisunderArticleVI,section14f  g f  g ,andf  g Ԁbecauseweholdtodaythat   theinitialinquiryundertheFiftyDollarFinesClauseiswhetherthelegislativebodyintendedthe   sanctiontoserveapunitiveoraremedialpurpose,expressstatementsofthatintentareespecially   relevant.Therefore,contrarytotheconclusionreachedbytheCourtofAppeals,theuseoftheterm    punishedinsection18(a)isparticularlyrelevantbecauseitstronglyindicatesthatthepecuniary p sanctionwasintendedbytheCityCounciltoconstituteapunitivemeasure. \   Consideringbothsections2413(b)andsection18(a),weconcludethattheclearand 4 predominantintentioninf  g f  g imposingaf  g Ԁfineforrecklessdrivingistopunishthedefendantforthe  p violationofthatordinance. +#  18      ׀AssumingpresentlythattheGeneralAssemblyhasgrantedthe  \ ChattanoogaCityCouncilauthoritytoenactpunitivesanctionsinexcessoffiftydollars, +#  19      ׀wehave H beenunabletolocateanystatutethatconfersupontheChattanoogaCityCourtthepowerorauthority 4 toempanelajuryforthispurpose.Infact,ourresearchconfirmsthatonlycourtsofgeneral   jurisdictionhavethepowertoempanelajurytodeterminefactsortoimposepunishment.   Therefore,irrespectiveofanycityordinancetothecontrary,thef  g f  g discretionf  g Ԁoff  g Ԁthef  g ԀChattanoogaCity  CourttoimposepunitivemonetarysanctionsisnecessarilylimitedbyArticleVI,section14tofines  notexceedingfiftydollars.Accordingly,weaffirmthereductionoftheappellantsfinetothat  amount.SeeHuffmanv.State,200Tenn.487,501,292S.W.2d738,744(1956)(statingthat  reductionofthefineonappealistheproperremedyforaviolationofArticleVI,section14),  overruledonothergrounds,Statev.Irvin,603S.W.2d121,123(Tenn.1980);Christianv.State, t 184Tenn.163,165,197S.W.2d797,79798(1946)(statingthatreductionistheproperremedyfor ` aviolationofArticleVI,section14,unless itwasimpossibleforaCourttoimposeeventhe L  minimumstatutoryfinewithouttheinterventionofajury). +#  20      ׀ 8      ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsonthisissueisaffirmedasmodified. +#  21        ` &    %  E.APPLICATIONTOBARRETTv.METROPOLITANGOVERNMENT  8      AsinDavis,ourfirstinquiryinthiscaseiswhetherthefinesimposedforviolationsofthe   MetropolitanCodeofLawswerepredominantlyintendedtoserveaspunishment.Theprovision   '`+%authorizingmonetarysanctionsforBarrettsfiveviolationsoftheCodeofLawsissection   16.04.172(A),which,atthetimeoftheviolations,providedinrelevantpartasfollows:   8  Wheneverinthistitle,orinanyrule,regulationororderpromulgatedbyanyofficer \ oragencyofthemetropolitangovernmentunderauthoritydulyvestedintheofficer H oragencybythistitle,orifanyactisprohibitedorismadeordeclaredtobeunlawful 4 oranoffenseoramisdemeanor,orthedoingofanyactisrequired,orthefailureto  p doanyactisdeclaredtobeunlawfuloranoffenseoramisdemeanor,whereno  \ specificpenaltyisprovidedthereforinthistitle,theviolationofanysuchprovision H ofthistitleorsuchrule,regulationororder,shallbepunishablebyfineinanamount 4 nottoexceedfivehundreddollars.    Ascanbeseenintheplainlanguageofthisprovision,whichisnotmateriallydifferentfromsection  18(a)oftheChattanoogaCityCode,theintendedpurposeofthesesanctionsf  g f  g istopunishviolations  oftheCodeofLaws.Indeed,morepersuasiveevidenceofapunitivepurposecanhardlybederived  exceptthroughtheCouncilsownexpressionthatthefineisusedtopunishthatwhichismade l unlawful,prohibited,ormadeordeclaredtobeamisdemeanor. X    D!   Nevertheless,inFebruary1999,theMetropolitanCouncilpassedaresolutiontoclarifyits  intentionastothepurposeofthepenaltiesimposedbytheCodeofLaws.Inrelevantpart,this  resolutionf  g f  g readsf  g Ԁasfollows:   8  AnyplaceintheMetropolitanCodeofLawswheretheterm itshallbea ` misdemeanoror itshallbeanoffenseor itshallbeunlawfulorsimilarterms L  appearintheMetropolitanCodeofLawstodenotethatcertainconductisinviolation 8  ofaMetropolitanGovernmentordinance,itshallmean itshallbeaciviloffense. $ t Anytimetheword fineappearsinapenaltyprovisionoftheMetropolitanCodeof  ` Laws,itshallmeana civilpenalty. L    Thepreambleclausesoftheresolutionexpresslyrecognizethatthethenpresentlanguageofthe $  CodeofLawswas inconsistentwiththenatureofacivilpenaltyand inconsistentwiththenature   oftheassessment.TheMetropolitanGovernmentnowcontendsthatthisCourtshouldgiveeffect   tothisnewlanguagebecauseitrepresentsthetrueintentionoftheMetropolitanCouncilastothe   purposeofthesanctionsinvolved.     Inpreviouscases,wehavegivensomeinterpretiveweighttosubsequentamendmentsthat \ purport toclarifytheoriginalintentionsofthelegislativebody.See,e.g.,Wakefieldv.Crawley, H 6S.W.3d442,447(Tenn.1999);Ashev.Leech,653S.W.2d398,402(Tenn.1983).Thegeneral 4 ruleappliedtoanalysisofclarificationamendmentshasbeenwellarticulatedbytheCourtof  p Appeals:  \ 8  Amerechangeinphraseologydoesnotindicateachangeinconstructionofthe 4 statute;butamaterialchangeinthephraseologyofastatuteisgenerallyregardedas   alegislativeconstructionthatthelawsoamendeddidnotoriginallyembracethe   amendedprovisions,andthisisparticularlytrueifitfollowssoonaftercontroversies  havearisenastotheinterpretationoftheoriginalact,andinterventionofjudicial  decisionsmaybeamaterialelementindeterminingtheeffectofanamendment.   StateBd.ofExaminersforArchitects&Engineersv.Weinstein,638S.W.2d406,409(Tenn.Ct. X  App.1982).Usingthisruleasourguide,thiscasepresentsanadmittedlyclosequestionasto D! whethertheordinancechangesaresomaterialastonegatetheCouncilsintentiontoclarifyexisting 0"  law.Nevertheless,becauseArticleVI,section14initiallygivessomedeferencetothestated #l! intentionregardingthepurposeofthepenalty,wewill,forpurposesofthiscaseonly,resolveour $X" & ` doubtinfavoroffindingthattheMetropolitanCouncilintendedfortheCodesmonetarypenalties $D # toserveremedialpurposes. %0!$   AnalysisoftheActualPurposesorEffectsoftheMonetarySanctions '#& ;  f  g f  g Presumingf  g ԀthatthesanctionsimposedbytheCodeofLawsf  g f  g areremedialintheirintended )$( purpose,ournextinquiryiswhetherthesepenaltiesarealsof  g Ԁremedialintheiractualpurposef  g f  g and |*%) '`$K:effect.Initially,wef  g ԀacknowledgethatthestatutoryprovisionsofTitle16,separateandapartfrom h+&* anyindividualsanctions,areintendedtoberemedialintheirpurposeandeffect.Section16.04.01  unequivocallystatesthatitspurposesare tosecure...publicsafety,healthandgeneralwelfare,  throughstructuralstrength,stability,sanitation,adequatelightandventilationandsafetytolifeand  propertyfromfireandotherhazardsincidenttotheconstruction,alteration,repair,removal, t demolition,[andthe]useandoccupancyofbuildings,structuresorpremises.f  g  `   f  g Howeverf  g ,themerefactthatthef  g intendedpurposeofthef  g statuteitselff  g f  g isremedialisnotalso 8  determinativeofwhetherthef  g actualpurposeandeffectf  g f  g Ԁofthestatutespenaltiesarelikewiseremedial $ t innature.WhatevereffecttheFebruary1999resolutionhadupontheintendedpurposeofthese  ` monetarysanctions,theresolutiondidnotaffecttheactualpurposeoreffectofthesesanctions,  L  becauseitwasaddressedonlytothelabelsofthesanctionswithinthestatutoryschemeasawhole.  8  BecauseArticleVI,section14isnotconcernedwiththeappellationgivenapenalty,thisresolution $  isofnoconsequencetotheactualpurposeandeffectofthefinesimposedinthiscase.Therefore,   todeterminetheactualpurposeandeffectofthefinesinthiscase,wemustfirstexaminehowf  g    monetaryf  g f  g penaltiescanserveremedialgoalsingeneralandthendeterminewhetherthepenalties   imposedheretrulyservedaremedialrolewithinthecontextoftheirstatutoryschemef  g .     Variouscourtshaveattemptedtodescribetheattributestypicallyassociatedwithcivil, \ remedialmeasures.Somecourtshaverecognizedthatremedialmeasuresaretypically corrective H andequitableinkind.SeeDyna-Med,Inc.v.FairEmployment&Hous.Commn,743P.2d1323, 4 1327(Cal.1987)(citationomitted).Theyaredesignedprimarily torectify,[or]toputright,  p Langfordv.Couch,50F.Supp.2d544,547(E.D.Va.1999)(citationomitted),andf  g f  g theymayconsist  \ off  g Ԁ [any]thingthatcorrects,counteracts,orremovesanevilorwrong.Statev.Zerkel,900P.2d H 744,748(AlaskaCt.App.1995)(citationomitted);CabinetRealty,Inc.v.Planning&Zoning 4 Commn,552A.2d1218,1221(Conn.Ct.App.1989).Quitesimply,f  g therefore,f  g remedialmeasures   areany meansbywhicharightisenforcedortheviolationofarightisprevented,redressed,or   compensated.Overmanv.SouthwesternBellTel.Co.,675S.W.2d419,423(Mo.f  g ԀCt.App.1984)  (citationomitted).    Usingthesedefinitionsasourguide,itisimmediatelyapparentthatmanysanctionsinTitle l 16arecorrectiveinnatureandthereforeserveremedialpurposes.Someoftheseremedialsanctions X  includetheissuanceofastopworkorder,CodeofLaws16.04.110,therevocationofanypermit D! orapproval,id.16.04.120,andtheabilityofthedirectorofcodesadministrationtorequireproof 0"  ofcompliancewiththeCodeattheexpenseoftheowneroragent,id.16.04.140.Ineachofthese #l! cases,thesanctionseekstocorrectortohaltthethenexistingviolationoftheCode. $X"   However,amonetarypenaltyoftenstandsinsharpcontrasttootherremedialmeasures, %0!$ becauseamonetarypenaltycanf  g servebutafewf  g Ԁtrulyf  g Ԁremedialpurposes.Someexamplesoftruly &"% remedialpurposesservedbymonetarypenaltiesf  g f  g includef  g Ԁthosethat(1)compensateforlossf  g f  g ;f  g Ԁ(2) '#& reimburseforexpensesf  g f  g ;f  g Ԁ(3)disgorge illgottengainsf  g f  g ;f  g Ԁ(4)providerestitutionforharm;and(5) (#' ensurecompliancewithanorderordirective,eitherthroughtheexecutionofabond,orasdiscussed )$( below,f  g Ԁthroughf  g Ԁaprospectivelycoercivefine.Importantly,however,totheextentthatamonetary |*%) penaltyisnotdesignedtoservetheseorsimilargoals,itwillappearmorelikelytopredominantly h+&* servethepurposeofgeneralandspecificdeterrence.Althoughweagreethatsomelevelof  deterrenceispresentinallremedialmeasures,whenthepredominantpurposesservedbythepenalty  aref  g f  g toprovidef