Perez v. Plaquemines Parish Commission Council

391 So. 2d 1308, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4842
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 12, 1980
DocketNo. 11689
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 1308 (Perez v. Plaquemines Parish Commission Council) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perez v. Plaquemines Parish Commission Council, 391 So. 2d 1308, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4842 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

SCHOTT, Judge.

Leander H. Perez, Jr., District Attorney of Plaquemines Parish, and one of his employees, Arthur 0. Cope, obtained a preliminary injunction against the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council and four of its five members, Luke A. Petrovich, Albert J. Beshel, Michael E. Kirby and Lennard H. Mackenroth, enjoining them from spending any public funds for any investigation relating to Perez and Cope. From that judgment defendants have appealed. The issue is whether Ordinance No. 248 adopted by the Council on January 23, 1980, and a companion resolution adopted on February 13,1980, exceeded the limitations placed on the Council by the Constitution and laws of the State of Louisiana, and, if so, whether plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they obtained in the trial court.1

In assigning his reasons for granting the injunction the trial judge focused his attention on the final paragraph of the resolution which provides as follows:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is in the public interest that the Plaque-mines Parish Commission Council be and it is hereby authorized to pursue any proper and legal recourse for the removal, recusal, impeachment or recall of the present District Attorney for the Parish of Plaquemines, Leander H. Perez, Jr.”

The trial judge reasoned that this language caused the resolution and the ordinance to be stricken with constitutional infirmity because of the prohibition established by Art. XI, § 4 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974:

“No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization. This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot.”

We are convinced that the trial judge’s resolution of the problem was only a partial solution, his injunction was overly broad, and the injunction must be modified so as to enable defendants as public officials to exercise their rights and discharge their obligations.

Plaquemines Parish operates under a home rule charter adopted by the people in November, 1966. That charter contains a number of pertinent provisions concerning the power of the Parish Council. For instance, Art. II, § 3, of the charter authorizes the Parish Council to do the following:

* * * * * *
“6. Conduct investigations, with the right to issue subpoenas for the production of books and papers, and summonses to compel the attendance of witnesses and their examination under oath to secure data and information helpful in the adoption of Ordinances to carry out the objects and purposes of this Charter; and to secure evidence regarding the violation of any provisions of this Charter or Ordinances.”
sk ¡‡:
“15. Regulate public health, morals, peace and good order of the people within the Parish of Plaquemines in any and all matters not prohibited by State law.”

Art. II, § 4, provides:

“The Parish Council shall have full power and authority to conduct and operate the [1310]*1310government of the Parish of Plaquemines and of the other political subdivisions and districts situated therein, in any and all matters not prohibited by state law.”

Defendants contend that these provisions of the Charter are sufficiently broad to authorize the action they took and that their authority was reinforced by the fact that the home rule Charter of Plaquemines Parish was already in existence at the time of the passage of the Constitution of 1974, so that Art. VI, § 4, of the Constitution is pertinent to the issues:

“Every home rule charter or plan of government existing or adopted when this constitution is adopted shall remain in effect and may be amended, modified, or repealed as provided therein. Except as inconsistent with this constitution, each local governmental subdivision which has adopted such a home rule charter or plan of government shall retain the powers, functions, and duties in effect when this constitution is adopted. If its charter permits, each of them also shall have the right to powers and functions granted to other local governmental subdivisions.”

While portions of the ordinance and resolutions might be authorized by the charter and constitution, the problem is with other portions which infringe upon the constitution and statutory powers of the District Attorney, the source of which is Art. V, § 26(B) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974:

“Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, a district attorney, or his designated assistant, shall have charge of every criminal prosecution of the state in his district, and be the representative of the state before the grand jury in his district, and be the legal advisor to the grand jury. He shall perform other duties provided by law.”

In the implementation of this constitutional provision, the legislature adopted C.Cr.P. Art. 61, which provides as follows:

“Subject to the supervision of the attorney general, as provided in Article 62, the district attorney has entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his district, and determines whom, when, and how he shall prosecute.”

The only constitutional limitation on the plenary grant of powers to the district attorney with respect to criminal prosecutions in the parish is found in Art. IV, § 8, which provides:

* * * Jfc * *
“As necessary for the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state, the attorney general shall have authority .... (3) for cause, when authorized by the court which would have original jurisdiction and subject to judicial review, (a) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any criminal action or proceeding, or (b) to supersede any attorney representing the state in any civil or criminal action.”

C.Cr.P. Art. 62, provides: “The attorney general shall exercise supervision over all district attorneys in the state.”

The office of district attorney belongs to the judicial branch of the government as outlined in Art. V of the Constitution of 1974, while the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council’s powers are executive and legislative. Thus, relations between the council and the district attorney are controlled by Art. II, § 2, of the Constitution which provides:

“Except as otherwise provided by this constitution, no one of these branches, nor any person holding office in one of them, shall exercise power belonging to either of the others.”

The preamble of the ordinance accuses the district attorney of using his office to persecute members and employees of the council by bringing charges and indictments against various individuals and expresses the council’s intention to interfere with the district attorney’s activities in this regard. Sec. 1(3) authorizes a public investigation and hearing “regarding criminal charges filed and to be filed by the district attorney, and Sec. 1(11) calls for an investigation with respect to the embezzlement of public funds by various employees of the district attor[1311]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roper v. East Baton Rouge Metropolitan Council
183 So. 3d 550 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 2011
COSSICH v. Plaquemines Parish Government
50 So. 3d 869 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Perez v. Plaquemines Parish Commission Council
397 So. 2d 805 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
391 So. 2d 1308, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 4842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-plaquemines-parish-commission-council-lactapp-1980.