Opinion ID: 1800945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis of case at bar.

Text: With these concepts in mind we further analyze the case before us. Plaintiff county board of supervisors is the legislative body in the county and exercises legislative powers delegated to it by the state legislature. Mandicino v. Kelly, 158 N.W.2d 754, 761 (Iowa 1968). Although it had statutory authority to approve hiring Gargano and authorize his salary, §§ 332.3(10), 341.1, and 344.10, The Code, its refusal to act prompted defendant's orders. The clash is the classic one between a state court and subdivision of the state wielding delegated legislative power. The first barrier to a meaningful disposition of this controversy is lack of an evidentiary record to support defendant's conclusions and orders. In absence of exigent circumstances requiring prompt action to preserve the court's operation, the question of the court's inherent power ordinarily should be accompanied with due process essentials of notice and opportunity to be heard. See Smith v. Iowa Employment Security Commission, 212 N.W.2d 471, 472 (Iowa 1973); Gottschalk v. Sueppel, 258 Iowa 1173, 1181, 140 N.W.2d 866, 870 (1966). In other jurisdictions in which these controversies have arisen, notice and hearing have been provided in proceedings instituted by an original action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, McAfee v. State ex rel. Stodola, supra; Judges for the Third Judicial Cir. v. County of Wayne, supra; by writ of mandamus, Smith v. Miller, supra; O'Coin's, Inc. v. Treasurer of County of Worcester, supra; by special action, Deddens v. Cochise County, supra; by quo warranto, State ex rel. Weinstein v. St. Louis County, supra; and by original action invoking superintending jurisdiction of the supreme court, State v. County Court of Kenosha County, supra. The ex parte jurisdiction of a court to make an order under its inherent judicial power, to notify those affected, and to enforce its order by contempt has been confirmed where there is a remedy by appeal and grant of stay. State ex rel. Edwards v. Murray, supra. But other decisions indicate when a court proposes to invoke the power on its own motion, the better practice is to make a detailed fact-finding and proposed order, file the same with an order to show cause why the proposed order should not be entered, serve copies on those affected, and provide opportunity for hearing. In Re Courtroom, etc., Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, 148 Wis. 109, 134 N.W. 490 (1912); State v. County Court of Kenosha County, supra, 11 Wis.2d at 577-578, 105 N.W.2d at 885; see Smith v. Miller, supra, 153 Colo. at 42-43, 384 P.2d at 742. Because such procedures were not followed this controversy surfaces here in a factual vacuum and poorly postured for meaningful adjudication. A second difficulty is presented by the question whether investigator Gargano could be considered a court-attached or judicial department employee. If not, inherent judicial power to appoint him is subject to serious question. We have no doubt that trial court, even absent § 336.3 authorizing such procedure, could under its inherent power appoint a prosecuting or acting county attorney to perform those county attorney duties essential to the criminal justice system. State v. Tyler, supra; White v. Polk County, supra. The county attorney is a quasi-judicial officer. Blanton v. Barrick, 258 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Iowa 1977); Wilhelm v. Turner, 298 F.Supp. 1335, 1338 (S.D.Iowa 1969), cert. den., 401 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 919, 28 L.Ed.2d 230 (1971); Application of Schragger, 58 N.J. 274, 278-279, 277 A.2d 212, 215 (1971). There is authority for holding the investigatory functions of a prosecuting attorney are quasi-judicial, at least to the extent of extending judicial immunity protection. Wilhelm v. Turner, supra. But we have described other public officers or peace officers charged with investigative duties as nonjudicial officers to whom the protection should not extend. Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 691 (Iowa 1973). Assuming, arguendo, investigator Gargano was performing quasi-judicial functions, we have no evidence or finding of specific facts to support the court's conclusions his services were necessary to investigate cases and to help unclog the Webster County Court Docket and to speed justice. We would be assisted by a description of the overload, the specific duties of Gargano, and why his services could not be performed by the sheriff and his deputies or the B.C.I. In short, there is before us no factual record upon which to determine defendant legally invoked judicial power for the immediate, necessary, efficient and basic functioning of the court. Because this court rarely has treated the subject of inherent judicial power and never has laid down substantive or procedural guidelines concerning its use, defendant had little in our case law to guide him. Without question, he conscientiously was endeavoring to carry out his duties as chief judge in conformance with procedural rules he relied on. The confidence and trust of the public and the bar depend on the efficient, competent administration of justice secured through adequate funding of courts. Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate, 422 Pa. 45, 55-56, 274 A.2d 193, 199-200 (1971), cert. den., 402 U.S. 974, 91 S.Ct. 1665, 29 L.Ed.2d 138 (1971). We are convinced the judicial department often bears unwarranted public blame for criminal justice system failures for which other departments are responsible by failing to furnish funds, facilities, or personnel. If in this instance we enforced defendant's orders it might well be the criminal justice system in Webster County would be enhanced. But that is not the test, as we have indicated. Under this record we are compelled to sustain the writ and annul defendant's orders. Costs are taxed to the plaintiff. WRIT IS SUSTAINED. MOORE, C. J., and MASON, RAWLINGS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. UHLENHOPP, LeGRAND and REES, JJ., concur specially. McCORMICK, J., takes no part.