City of Knoxville v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. E2007-01906-COA-R3-CV.,E2007-01906-COA-R3-CV.
• Parties: CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. Ronald G. BROWN.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

284 S.W.3d 330

CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. Ronald G. BROWN.

No. E2007-01906-COA-R3-CV.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville.

June 18, 2008 Session.

July 30, 2008.

Order Denying Petition to Rehear August 22, 2008.

Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court February 17, 2009.

Ronald G. Brown, Oak Ridge, TN, pro se.

Ronald E. Mills, Deputy Law Director, Knoxville, TN, for the Appellee.

OPINION

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, P.J., and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., joined.

Ronald G. Brown ("Defendant") is the registered owner of a vehicle which was photographed running a red light in Knoxville, Tennessee. The intersection where this occurred was one of the intersections monitored by Knoxville's red light camera enforcement program. Defendant was mailed a $50 citation for the violation. Defendant, proceeding pro se, challenged the validity of the Knoxville City Ordinance establishing the red light camera enforcement program. Defendant claimed that the ordinance was an ultra vires act of the City of Knoxville's police power. Defendant also claimed that the ordinance violated due process and equal protection of the laws. The Trial Court upheld the validity of the ordinance. We affirm.

Background

This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of the City of Knoxville's red light camera enforcement system. The underlying facts in this case were stipulated below. That stipulation provides as follows:

1. That Defendant Ronald G. Brown was the registered owner of a Chevrolet motor vehicle bearing Tennessee license number 396 BBN on or about September 18, 2006.

2. That on or about September 18, 2006 at approximately 2:49 p.m. the Chevrolet motor vehicle bearing Tennessee license plate number 396 BBN was driven in a generally westerly direction on Kingston Pike across the stop bar for westbound traffic and into and through the intersection with Alcoa Highway while the traffic signal controlling westbound traffic was displaying an illuminated red light.

3. That at the time said Chevrolet motor vehicle crossed the stop bar for westbound traffic on Kingston Pike and proceeded into and through the intersection with Alcoa Highway its speed was approximately twenty-nine (29) miles per hour.

4. That the act of driving said motor vehicle in a generally westerly direction on Kingston Pike across the stop bar for westbound traffic and into and through the intersection with Alcoa Highway while the traffic signal controlling westbound traffic was displaying an illuminated red light violated Section 17-506(a)(3)(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Knoxville.

5. That ownership of a motor vehicle entering an intersection against an illuminated red light, in violation of Section 17-506(a)(3)(a), renders the registered owner responsible for the unlawful use of that automobile pursuant to Section 17-210 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Knoxville, subject to certain exceptions noted in the ordinance.

6. That the attached Exhibit A is a true and exact copy of the citation issued to Defendant Ronald G. Brown alleging liability under Section 17-210 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Knoxville.

7. That each of the photographic images attached as Exhibits B, C and D are true and accurate depictions of the Chevrolet motor vehicle bearing Tennessee license plate 396 BBN proceeding in a generally westerly direction on Kingston Pike at or near the intersection with Alcoa Highway on or about September 18, 2006 at approximately 2:49 p.m., and of the status of the traffic signal controlling that intersection.

8. That the video images contained in the disk attached as exhibit E are a true and accurate depiction of the Chevrolet motor vehicle bearing Tennessee license number 396 BBN proceeding in a generally westerly direction on Kingston Pike at or near the intersection with Alcoa Highway on or about September 18, 2006 at approximately 2:49 p.m., and of the status of the traffic signal controlling that intersection.

9. That the attached Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Sections ... 17-210 and 17-506 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Knoxville.

After receiving the citation, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a "Motion to Declare Knoxville City Code § 17-210(c) an Ultra Vires Act of Police Power."¹ Defendant argued, among other things, that City Code § 17-210(c) was an "ultra vires act of police power" because: (1) the ordinance violates procedural and substantive due process rights because it holds Defendant liable for the violation, regardless of who committed the act, unless Defendant identifies the actual driver; and (2) the ordinance violates equal protection because it affords a greater degree of protection to the guilty driver than the innocent vehicle owner.

Following a hearing on Defendant's motion, the Trial Court issued an order stating as follows:

This cause came to be heard on the 29th day of June, 2007 on the Motion of the Defendant to declare Knoxville City Code § 17-210(c) an ultra vires act of police power. Upon review of the memoranda submitted by the parties, and upon hearing the argument of the Defendant and counsel for the City of Knoxville, it is the opinion of this Court that the City of Knoxville possessed sufficient authority, through its general police powers and through authority granted by the General Assembly, to enact City Code § 17-210, authorizing the City of Knoxville's red light photo enforcement program and providing for liability of the registered owner of a vehicle for use of the vehicle in violation of the City Code. The Court therefore finds that Defendant's Motion is not well taken, in that City Code § 17-210 is a valid exercise of the City of Knoxville's police power....

After the Trial Court determined that Knoxville City Code § 17-210 was a valid exercise of police power, the Trial Court concluded in a separate order that "under the stipulated facts Defendant Ronald G. Brown is liable under Section 17-210 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Knoxville." The Trial Court then imposed a $50 fine.

Defendant appeals and raises the following issue, which we quote: "Did the City of Knoxville possess the authority to enact Knoxville City Code § 17-210 as it was written?"

Discussion

Defendant's various challenges to the validity of Knoxville City Code § 17-210 present questions of law. With respect to legal issues, our review is conducted "under a pure de novo standard of review, according no deference to the conclusions of law made by the lower courts." Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. Of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn.2001).

The Municipal Court Reform Act of 2004, codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-18-301, et seq., sets forth the jurisdiction of municipal courts. In relevant part, the statute provides:

16-18-302. Jurisdiction of municipal courts. — (a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary:

(1) A municipal court possesses jurisdiction in and over cases:

(A) For violation of the laws and ordinances of the municipality; or

(B) Arising under the laws and ordinances of the municipality; and

(2) A municipal court also possesses jurisdiction to enforce any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates or incorporates by cross-reference the language of a state criminal statute, if and only if the state criminal statute mirrored, duplicated or cross-referenced is a Class C misdemeanor and the maximum penalty prescribed by municipal law or ordinance is a civil fine not in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00).

Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-18-302(a) (Supp. 2007).

Knoxville City Code § 17-210 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(c) Offense.

(1) It shall be unlawful for a vehicle to cross the stop line at a system location per subsection 17-506(a)(3)(a), or for a vehicle to violate any other traffic regulation specified in chapter 17 (motor vehicles and traffic) of the Code of Ordinances of the city.

(2) A person who receives a citation under subsection (c) may:

a. Pay the civil penalty, in accordance with instructions on the citation, directly to the city court; or

b. Elect to contest the citation for the alleged violation.

(3) The owner of a vehicle shall be responsible for a violation under this section, except when he can provide evidence that the vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person at the time of the violation, as described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, in which circumstance the person who had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle at the time of the violation shall be responsible.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (c)(3) of this section, the owner of the vehicle shall not be responsible for the violation if, on the designated court date, he furnishes the city court:

a. An affidavit by him stating the name and address of the person or entity who leased, rented, or otherwise had the care, custody, and control of the vehicle at the time of the violation; or

b. An affidavit by him stating that, at the time of the violation, the vehicle involved was stolen or was in the care, custody, or control of some person who did not have his permission to use the vehicle.

(d) Penalty

(1) Any violation of subsection (c) of this section shall subject the responsible person or entity to a civil penalty of $50, without assessment of court costs or fees. Failure to pay the civil penalty or appear in court to contest the citation on the designated date shall subject the responsible person or entity to assessment of court costs and fees as set forth in this chapter and chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances. The city may establish procedures for the trial or civil violators, and the collection of civil penalties and may enforce the penalties by a civil action in the nature of a debt.

(2) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed under this section shall not be considered a moving violation and may not be...