Leahy v. City of Knoxville

• Decision Date: 14 December 1951
• Citation: 29 Beeler 242,193 Tenn. 242,245 S.W.2d 772
• Parties: LEAHY et al. v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE. 29 Beeler 242, 193 Tenn. 242, 245 S.W.2d 772
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 772

245 S.W.2d 772

LEAHY et al. v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE.

29 Beeler 242, 193 Tenn. 242, 245 S.W.2d 772

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Dec. 14, 1951.

Petition to Rehear Jan. 4, 1952.

Petition Denied Feb. 9, 1952.

H. F. Atkins, Clarence Blackburn, J. C. Thomason and Taylor & Badgett, all of Knoxville, for complainants.

Fowler, Long & Fowler, John A. Rowntree, Foster D. Arnett and R. C. Smith, Jr., all of Knoxville, for defendants.

PREWITT, Justice.

The complainants filed their bill charging that the City of Knoxville on April 24, 1951 passed a resolution authorizing an investigation of the various departments of the city government in legislative matters; that on June 5, 1951 the council passed a resolution authorizing an investigation of the activities of city officials and other employees during the recent session of the Tennessee Legislature, for the purpose of disclosing whether undue or improper influence of pressure was exerted in behalf of the legislation affecting the city of Knoxville. It seems that this legislation provided for substantial increases in the pay and salaries of the various city employees. It appears that the resolution also provided for expenses and gave the chairman of the committee authority to subpoena witnesses and for the production of books, papers, records and other evidence, and provided for punishment for witnesses who disobeyed the subpoena. It is charged that said effort on the part of the city was to humiliate and damage the complainants. An injunction was issued as prayed for in the bill but it was later modified so as to allow the investigation to continue but denying the right of the defendants to have the complainants produce the records of their respective organizations. The defendants filed a demurrer, the purport of which challenges the right of the court to in any manner limit the investigation and contended that the city council as a legislative body had the right, power and authority to make this investigation and to require the production of books, records and private papers of the complainants. The Chancellor held that under the charter provisions, the city had the right to pass the resolution and that it was valid and constitutional; that the city, through its council and sitting as a committee as a whole, is entitled to proceed in the investigation contemplated. The Chancellor further held that the committee may subpoena witnesses to appear and testify as to what they have seen and know and anyone or any organization who may voluntarily appear may give any evidence; that they might even call the complainants to testify but all such witnesses may claim such immunity as they may have under the law; that as to the production by the complainants of their books, valuable records and private papers, the Chancellor held that the resolution and subpoena duces tecum call for unreasonable search and seizure and seek to compel the complainants to testify against themselves and are therefore unconstitutional and void.

The complainants appealed from so much of the decree as held that the city had the right to investigate, and the city appealed from the decree which held that subpoenas duces tecum call for unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Constitution.

The first question presented is whether or not the defendants have authority to make the investigation. We think that a municipality has the inherent authority to investigate the activities of its several departments and employees. However, in looking to the charter provisions of the city of Knoxville, we find ample authority for such investigations.

The sections of the city charter upon which the motion was based are as follows:

'Section 5.

'(44). Investigations of City Departments. To make such investigations as the legislative body may deem necessary or proper as to any department or as to any of the city's institutions or activities; and to enable the legislative body to make such investigation said body is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint such committee or committees as it deems necessary to make such investigations, and said committee or committees when so appointed are hereby clothed with the power to administer oaths to witnesses, to issue subpoenas for witnesses and to compel their attendance and to punish as for contempt of court by appropriate fine not to exceed $50.00 for failure of a witness when duly summond to attend and testify, and if necessary to commit such delinquent witness to the workhouse for failure to testify until such witness shall have purged himself of the contempt by agreeing to give evidence and by testifying.'

Sec. 8, Ch. 2, City Code:

'The council, the city manager or any committee authorized by either or both shall have power to inquire into the conduct of any department or office of the city, and to make investigations as to city affairs, and for that purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and compel the production of books, papers and other evidence.

'Any person who fails or refuses to obey any subpoena issued by the council, city manager or committee, or who refuses to testify,...