State ex rel. Morton v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 03 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | 30858 |
| Citation | 131 So. 31,171 La. 313 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MORTON v. MEYERS, Superintendent of Police. Ex parte MEYERS, Superintendent of Police |
Michel Provosty, City Atty., and John E. Unsworth, Asst. City Atty. both of New Orleans, for relator.
A. J Hollander, of New Orleans, for respondent John J. Morton.
John J Morton was summoned, as a prosecuting witness, to testify at a hearing had before the superintendent of police upon pending charges against three members of the police department of the city of New Orleans. After vainly trying to have the charges dismissed, Morton refused to testify at hearing, whereupon the superintendent of police adjudged him guilty of contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment in the First precinct police station for 48 hours. Morton applied to the criminal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, and, after a hearing on a rule to show cause, the court granted the writ and Morton was discharged. The superintendent of police then applied to this court for writs of certiorari and prohibition. A writ of certiorari was issued, and in response thereto the record is now before us for review.
It is conceded that the power of a court to punish for contempt is inherent, but respondent contends and the criminal court judge held that the superintendent of police, of the city of New Orleans, is not clothed with any judicial authority and a hearing before him is not a hearing before a court.
Such powers as the superintendent of police may lawfully exercise are to be found in section 5 of Act No. 32 of 1904. Section 6 of Act No. 79 of 1920, which relator cites, does not apply. It does not confer any power whatever upon the superintendent of police. It is an enactment in the interest of accused members of the police department and, in effect, it is nothing more than a reiteration of the citizens' constitutional guaranties. We quote the section:
"Be it further enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That in case any member of said Police Departments shall be brought before the Board of Police Commissioners, the Superintendent of Police or other officer or officers having the management, control or direction of said Police Department, on charges which may result in a finding of guilt and in his being dismissed, suspended or otherwise disciplined, such member shall have the right to be specifically informed, in writing, of the accusation against him; to be allowed counsel; to have time to prepare his defense; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to examine such witnesses."
Act No. 32 of 1904 creates the office of inspector of the police force, of the city of New Orleans, and section 5 of the act confers upon the incumbent of that office certain powers. Act No. 187 of 1924 changes the title of the office to superintendent of police and continues in force and effect such powers, duties, and rights as are prescribed by Act No. 32 of 1904. The powers of the inspector, as prescribed by section 5 of said act, relate exclusively to the inspector's government, administration, disposition, and discipline of the police force of the city of New Orleans. For the prompt and efficient exercise of these powers, the inspector has the power to make and enforce such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary, and (quoting from the Act):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Plaza Ford
...190 Okl. 156, 121 P.2d 586 (Sup.Ct.1942); see Plunkett v. Hamilton, 136 Ga. 72, 70 S.E. 781 (Sup.Ct.1911); State ex rel. Morton v. Meyers, 171 La. 313, 131 So. 31 (Sup.Ct.1930); Cf. Ex Parte Patterson, 110 Ark. 94, 161 S.W. 173 (Sup.Ct.1913); Brown v. Davidson, 59 Iowa 461, 13 N.W. 442 The ......
-
Appalachian Power Co. v. Public Service Com'n of W.Va.
...Dogge v. State, 21 Neb. 272, 31 N.W. 929 (1887); Vogel v. Corporation Comm'n, 190 Okl. 156, 121 P.2d 586 (1942); State ex rel. Morton v. Meyers, 171 La. 313, 131 So. 31 (1930). One of the best discussions of this point is contained in Wright, supra at 1206, where the Court utilized this pra......
-
Graham v. Jones
...Court had the power to punish for contempt, it set aside the contempt proceeding because of its irregularity. In State ex rel. Morton v. Meyers, 171 La. 313, 131 So. 31, it was held that in the absence of a constitutional inhibition, the Legislature may confer the power to punish for contem......
-
State v. Elliott
... ... the father of a power which he is likely to abuse. State ... ex rel. Lasserre v. Michel, 105 La. 741, 30 So. 122, 54 ... L.R.A. 927 ... Where ... a ... ...