### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Fe br ua ry 10, 200 9 S es sio n CITY OF KN OXV ILLE v. JOSHU A D AV ID KIM SEY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forKnox Coun ty No. 3-83-07 Hon. Wheeler Rosenbalm, Circuit Judge

No. E2008-00850-COA- R3-CV - FILED MAY 13, 2009

Def endant ha s ap p ea l ed from a tr aff ic court violation conviction based on docume ntary e vidence
cre ated by a came ra at a street intersec tion. The Trial Court af firmed the City Court conviction and defe ndant has a

ppeale d to this C ourt raising seve ral issues. Upon r evie w o f t h e record a nd
c on sid e ratio n o f the e vid e nc e , w e a ff ir m th e Ju dg me nt o f the Tria l Co urt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d.

H ER S CHEL P ICK EN S F R ANKS , P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which C H A RL ES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., and J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., joined.

Da vidB. H a mil ton a ndChrist op he r R ow e , K no xv ill e , T e nn e sse e , f or app e lla nt , Jo sh ua

Da vid Kimsey. Angela Bolton Rauber

and Ronald E. Mills, Knoxville, Tennessee , fo r appellee, the City of Knoxville.

OP IN ION

I n t h i s action, def

endant wa s issued a traf fic c itation resulting f

rom a c amer a rec ording at a stre et intersec tion. The Muni ci pal Court convicted de fenda nt of a tra ffic violation which he a

ppeale d t o t h e C i rc u i t Court. I n Circuit Court, the Cit y filed a Motion for a

n Orde r De e min g Matte rs Ad

mitte d, statin g that th e y

se rv e d d e fe nd ant w ithRe qu e sts fo r Admis sio n o n July 18 , 20 07 , and ha d re c e ive d no re sp on se

. De fe nd ant fi le d a Mo tio n fo r Re lie f o f B on d, a Mo tio n to Di s m i s s f o r L a c k o f Jur i s d i c t i o n , an d a M o t i o n f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f R

u l e s A p p l i c a

b l e t o Ap pe a l.-2- The Tr ial Court entere d an Or der g rantingthe M o tion for Orde r De eming Matters Admitted, finding that the R equests for Admissions had been deemed admit ted for the purposes of the issues befor e the Court. De fenda nt then filed other motions including a Motion to Transfe r Appea l to Crimi nal Division, a Motion to S et Aside Or der, a nd other Motions to Dismis s.
The Court then e ntere d an Or der a nd Fi n al J u dg ment, finding that the City had sufficie nt authority

to e nact §17-210(c ) of the Code of the City of Knoxvi lle, and that the or dinance
was a civil or quasi-civil m atter, and enfor cing the ordinance was a valid ex erc ise of the City ’s police power s. Furthe r, t hat the ordina nce did not violate the U nited States or Tenne ssee Constitutions , and that defe ndant violated §17-210( c) a nd was liable f

or the $50.00 fine

. De fe nd ant h a s a

pp e a le d a nd ra ise s th e se iss ue s:
1. Whether the Tr i al Court erre d by denying de fenda

nt’s constitutional protec tions of due proc ess and pr ivilege ag ainst self-incr imination?

2. Whether t h e T ri al Court erre d by upholding a

municipal ordinanc e that substantially

alters a corr esponding state cr iminal statute?

3. Whe the r t

he Tr ia l Co ur

t e rr e d b y up ho ld ing City of Kn oxvil le a

uth or ity to d e l e g a t e p o l i c e p o w e r

t o a n o n - g o v e r

n m e n t a l t h i r d

p art y?
Def endant a rg ues that ordinanc es such as the one at issue ar e pena l in nature, a nd that all constitutional gua

rante es u n d e r th e Un it e d

St a te s and Tenne ssee Constitutions relating to cr iminal prosec utions should apply . He a rg ues that the Court er

red in re fusing to hold the Rules of Criminal Procedur e applica

ble rather than the Rules of Civil Procedur e, and that the C ourt err ed in refusing to transfe r the c ase to the c riminal division. Further, that th e mailed notice denied de fenda nt due pr oc e ss. The Supreme Court and t h i s Court have pr eviously held that ac tions based on a violation of a city

ordinanc e ar e civil in nature for the pur poses of a ppeal/proc edure . Thus, the Trial Court pr op e rl y de nie d d e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n s e e kin g to h a ve the Rul es of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure a pp ly to this action. City

of C ha tta no og

a v . M y e rs , 7 87 S.W. 2d

92 1 ( Te nn . 1 98 0) ; Cit

y o f K n o xv i l l e v. Br own , 2008 WL 2925370 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 30, 2008).

De fe nd ant f

ur the r a rgue s t hat app lic a tio n o f T e nn . R. Civ . P. 36 de nie d h im
c on sti tut ion a l pr ote c tio ns , b e c a us e the Court

fo un d th at he a dmi tte d c e rt a in m a tte rs by fa ili ngto respond to the Requests for Admission that wer e serve d upon him. The Br own court re cog nized that
c on sti tut ion a l pr ote c tio ns c ou ld atta c h to ac tio ns su c h a s th is. Ho we ve r, de fe nd ant’ s a rgume nt f a ils to rec og nize that it has be en long -established that he could have asser ted the privileg e ag ainst selfi n crimination upon proper g rounds, in a civil ca se. Ri c ha rd so n v . Te nn . B d. of D e nti str y , 9 13 S.W .2d 446 (Tenn. 1995) . Def endant f ailed to do this , eit her in the he aringheld in City Court (whe re th e d e f

e n d an t te s ti f

ie d , a c c o r d in g to h is b r ie f ) o r b y r e s p o n d in g to th e Re qu e s ts for-3-

Admission and assertingthat privileg e. De fenda nt waived the pr ivilege , rathe r than having it denie d by the Court. State Dep’ t of Chi ldren’s Serv ices v . M.P. , 173 S.W .3d 794 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Def endant a lso argues the Tr ial Court should have transfe rre d this action to the crim i n al d i v i sion, but as expl ained, these actions ar e conside red c ivil in nature, and de fenda nt’s prec ise issues reg ardingdue proc ess wer e addr essed by this Court i n Br own
. We find there was no violation. The re cord doe s not show that defe ndant’s constitutional rig hts were infring ed, and the iss ue s r a ise d a

re wi tho ut m e ri t. Next, defenda

nt argues the Trial Court e rre d by upholding the Munic ipal ordinanc e, which he a sserts substantially alters a corr esponding state st atute. He also argues t hat t he ordina nce improperly

deleg ates police p o wer

to a non-g overnme ntal third party . These issues w ere alre ady deter mined and ar e not applica ble her e, as e x plained in Br own
. We made cle ar in Br own tha t Cit y Cod e §1 7- 21 0 w a s n ot i n c on fl ic t w ithany state s t at u t e , a s t h e i s s u e w as ad dre s s edi nd ep t h i nt h at o p i n i o n

. W e s t at edt h at , “E v en t h o u gh
c on sti tut ion a l pr ote c tio ns are tr ig g e re d b y the fi ne imp os e d by City Cod e § 1 7- 21 0, we ne ve rt he le ss c on c lud e tha

t th e pr oc e e din g is c ivi l in natur e and , in a c c or da nc e wi th t he statut e s q

uo te d a bo ve , w e ll within the police power o f t h e C i t y of Knoxvil le. Ther efor e, we reje ct def endant' s argument that City Code § 17-210 i s ultra vi res and aff irm the Trial Court' s judgme nt on this i ssue.” Br own , 2008 WL 2925370. The Brown Court addre ssed and disposed of all of def endant’ s arguments reg arding the validity

of the ordina

nce.
De fe nd ant’ s r e ma ini ngargume nt i s th a t th e City did n o t h a ve the a uth or ity to d e le g a te p o li c e p o w e r

to a n o n - g o v e r

n me n ta l t h ir d p arty , b y s h ar in g c it

y r e v e nu e w it

h Re d f le x, d e le g a ti ng core g overnme nt functions reg ardingissuance of citations, etc. A r eview o f t h e co ntrac t betwee n the City and Redflex, howe ver, demonstrates that Redflex mer ely g ather s the photos and data a nd the n a po lic e of fi c e r re vie ws the same to de te rm ine wh e the r a c itatio n s ho uld

be iss ue d. Th e City has plena ry power to decide w ho to cite an d whether those ac tions take place . We conclude that Redflex’s only duty is to g ather the photos a nd data via the came ras, and this doe s not constitute any exercise of p o l i ce p o wers. The ag ree ment does not run af oul of any

of the Attorne y

Gene ral Op ini on s c ite d. We f

ind thi s is su e a s w e ll t o b e wi tho ut m e ri t. The Judgment of the Trial Court is aff irmed, and the cause rema nded, with the
c o s to f t h e a p p e a l a s s e s s e d

t o J o s h u a

D a v i d K i m s e y.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.