Opinion ID: 1383099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether judge brewer sat as a state judge in a state court possessed of the power to punish for contempt.

Text: Browder in his cross-petition argues that on the occasion in question Judge Brewer sat as a city judge and was not endowed with the power to cite for contempt. Browder reaches this conclusion by process of the following reasoning: Anchorage is a home rule city and under Article X, Section 7 of the Alaska Constitution it is provided that Cities shall have the powers and functions conferred by law or charter. In Lien v. City of Ketchikan, 383 P.2d 721, 723 (Alaska 1963), this court construed this constitutional provision to mean that where a home rule city is concerned the charter, and not a legislative act, is looked to in order to determine whether a particular power has been conferred upon the city. When one looks to the charter, it can be seen that it does in fact set up a court system. Section 8 of the appendix to the charter of the city of Anchorage, Alaska, provides in part that: The magistrate's court, as established on the effective date of this charter, shall continue to be the Magistrate's Court of the city. Browder further reasons that neither the constitution of Alaska nor any legislative enactment prohibits the creation of courts by a municipal corporation under a home rule charter. [50] Browder concludes his argument by pointing to the fact that no ordinance nor charter provision vested the contempt power in the Anchorage city magistrate's court. The state on the other hand argues that the superior court correctly ruled that a home rule municipality is precluded from establishing its own court system by virtue of the provisions of Article IV, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution. It is the state's contention that Article IV, Section 1 vests the judicial power of the state in a unified state court system. [51] The state further argues that the charter of the city of Anchorage does in fact grant contempt powers to the court when hearing municipal matters. [52] Here the state relies upon the provisions of section 8 of the appendix to the charter of the city of Anchorage which provides: The magistrate court, as established on the effective date of this charter, shall continue to be the Magistrate's Court of the city. It shall have all the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon the court by law and shall continue to exercise such powers and jurisdiction until superseded by law. Chapter 1, section 1.5(g) of the charter of the city of Anchorage defines the term by law to be applicable federal law, the Constitution and statutes of Alaska, the applicable common law, and this charter. Since AS 09.50.010 confers contempt powers on the courts of Alaska, that power, the state contends, exists in the court of the municipal division by virtue of the provisions of section 8 of the appendix to the charter of the city of Anchorage. Assuming, without deciding, that Browder's analysis is correct, and that it is constitutionally permissible for a municipality to create its own court system, we are in agreement with the state's analysis of the question and hold that section 8 of the appendix to the charter of the city of Anchorage authorized Judge Brewer to punish contempts pursuant to state law. [53]