Case Title: In Re Reyes

Citation: 381 A.2d 865, 476 Pa. 59

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1977-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
476 Pa. 59 (1977) 381 A.2d 865 In re District Attorney's Investigation of Police Shooting of Jose REYES. Petition of Gerald SALERNO, Charles Gubler, Steven Maggiancaldo, Andrew Yaletsko, Howard Davis, James Dorwart, David Ridgeway, Sid Mullins and Robert Butler. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued October 17, 1977. Decided December 23, 1977. *60 *61 Burton A. Rose, Philadelphia, for petitioner. F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Michael R. Stiles, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Joseph Murray, Philadelphia, for respondent. Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and PACKEL, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. This matter is before us on a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Philadelphia Police Officers Gerald Salerno, Charles Gubler, Steven Maggiancaldo, Andrew Yaletsko, *62 Howard Davis, James Dorwart, David Ridgeway, Sid Mullins and Robert Butler.[1] On July 2, 1977, Jose Reyes was shot to death in Philadelphia. Police Officer Gerald Salerno was alleged to be the person who shot Reyes. The Philadelphia District Attorney's office, through its homicide division, began an investigation into the circumstances of the Reyes-Salerno shooting. On August 3, 1977, five of the above-mentioned police officers were requested to appear at the office of the chief of the homicide division. On advice of counsel, the five officers appeared, but refused to make any statements concerning the facts surrounding the Reyes-Salerno shooting. On August 5, 1977, the district attorney's office filed a petition with Judge Merna B. Marshall of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The gravamen of the petition alleged that the Philadelphia District Attorney, pursuant to § 8-409 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, had investigative subpoena power. Pursuant to § 8-409 of the charter, the district attorney asked the court to confirm such subpoena power. On August 18, 1977, the court, per Judge Marshall, issued an order: On August 23, 1977, the petitioners filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in this court. On August 29, 1977, a justice of this court issued a stay of the proceeding pending disposition of the petition for writ of prohibition by the full court. On September 14, 1977, this court granted a rule to show cause, returnable on October 17, 1977. On that date, the petition was argued before the full court. *63 The initial inquiry is whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy in the instant case. In Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94, 102, 61 A.2d 426, 430 (1948), this court stated: In Commonwealth v. Mellon Nat. Bk. & Tr. Co., 360 Pa. 103, 107, 108, 61 A.2d 430, 433 (1948), this court further defined the scope and availability of a Writ of Prohibition: *65 In Com. ex rel. Specter v. Shiomos, 457 Pa. 104, 107-108, 320 A.2d 134, 136 (1974), this court synthesized the Carpentertown and Mellon Bank rationales by saying: A. Adequate remedy at law. In the instant case, the court below issued an order authorizing the district attorney to issue subpoenas to nine Philadelphia Police Officers in connection with that office's homicide investigation of possible criminal culpability in the Reyes shooting. The authority proffered by the district attorney for his authority to issue investigative subpoenas was § 8-409 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Section 8-409 provides: No subpoenas pursuant to § 8-409 have been issued by the district attorney to the petitioners. The record, however, is clear that none of the police officers intends to comply with the district attorney's subpoenas. Petitioners contend that the district attorney's office is not within the phrase: "Every officer, department, board or commissioner authorized to hold or conduct investigations" of § 8-409, and, therefore, the district attorney has no authority to issue subpoenas. This argument, however, goes not to the authority of the Court of Common Pleas to compel compliance, but rather is a statutory construction argument cognizable on appeal. In Cathcart v. Crumlish, 410 Pa. 253, 254-55, 189 A.2d 243, (1963), this court determined that an adequate remedy at law existed to challenge the district attorney's alleged subpoena authority under § 8-409 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and, therefore, the court vacated an equity decree which dismissed a bill in equity seeking to enjoin the issuance of the subpoena. The court, in Cathcart, summarized the pertinent facts as follows. The court, in Cathcart, at pages 255-57, 189 A.2d at page 244, went on and stated: Moreover, no petition for enforcement of the administrative subpoena has been filed pursuant to § 8-409 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Rather, the district attorney has sought a "confirmation" of authority under the Charter provisions to issue the subpoena. In Pa. Crime Commission Subpoena, 453 Pa. 513, 516-518, 309 A.2d 401, 404 (1973), this court, in a similar situation of dealing with administrative subpoenas, stated: "Preliminarily, we note that appellants' motion to quash the subpoena in the Common Pleas Court was improper. *68 Appellants cannot contest the validity of the subpoena until the Commission invokes enforcement procedures in either the Courts of Common Pleas or the Commonwealth Court. This is so because, unlike a judicial subpoena, the Crime Commission is not given power to enforce compliance. Therefore, individuals are not placed in the dilemma of having to disobey the Commission's subpoena at their peril in order to contest its validity. Failure to comply is not punishable by fine or imprisonment unless it continues after a court has ordered compliance. See Cathcart v. Crumlish, 410 Pa. 253, 189 A.2d 243 (1963); Alpha Club of West Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 363 Pa. 53, 68 A.2d 730 (1949). (Footnote omitted.) Cathcart, supra, established that § 8-409 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter provides an adequate remedy at law to challenge the district attorney's subpoena power. An adequate remedy at law existing, a writ of prohibition is not available. See Pa. Crime Commission Subpoena, supra. Moreover, petitioners' argument does not go to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas to entertain the petition; rather it goes to whether the district attorney is a member of the class of city officers within the enumeration of § 8-409. To issue a writ of prohibition in the instant case would require its issuance every time a *69 party objected to the opposing side's statutory standing or common-law authority for certain action. The second prong of the Shiomos test requires that the granting of the writ of prohibition "secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings." See Shiomos, supra, 457 Pa. at 108, 320 A.2d at 136. In the instant case, the granting of the writ would seem to defeat rather than further order and regularity of judicial proceedings. No subpoenas have been issued pursuant to the order of the court below. While the record indicates that the police officers, if subpoenaed, would not comply, the record does not show whether such noncompliance would be based on a valid exercise of the officers' constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The Court, in Cathcart, supra, 410 Pa. at 256-57, 189 A.2d at 245, stated: Cathcart makes clear that the petitioners need not be held in contempt to challenge the district attorney's authority under the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Petitioners can raise any challenges or possible defense to the subpoena at the *70 time the petition to enforce is filed. See Pa. Crime Commission Subpoena, supra. In Com. ex rel. Specter v. Freed, 424 Pa. 508, 228 A.2d 382 (1967), the Philadelphia district attorney subpoenaed M. Philip Freed, a magistrate. The district attorney's theory for his authority to issue a subpoena was the same as this case, § 8-409 of the charter. A plurality opinion (Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Jones and O'Brien) stated that § 8-409 of the charter did not grant subpoena power. Justice Cohen filed a concurring opinion in which he reached the same result but specifically refused to address the charter issue. Justice Eagen, now Chief Justice, filed a concurring opinion, joining the result reached but again not ruling on the charter issue. C.J. Bell dissented. Specter is instructive in the instant case, not for its discussion of the merits of the district attorney's subpoena power under the charter but rather for its procedural posture. In Specter, the district attorney issued the subpoena and upon Freed's failure to comply, the district attorney went into Common Pleas Court to enforce the subpoena. Common Pleas Court agreed with the district attorney and ordered compliance. Freed appealed from that order to this court. Specter does not control the instant case. Initially Specter is a plurality opinion by three members of the court and, therefore, it is not binding precedent. Moreover, in Specter, the proper procedure was used. An appeal was taken after a compliance order. All that we decide today is that a writ of prohibition is not the proper procedure or remedy to challenge the district attorney's alleged subpoena power under § 8-409 of the Philadelphia charter. Under the facts of the instant case, i.e. no subpoenas having been issued, and no petition to enforce subpoenas having been filed, we are of the opinion that the second prong of the Shiomos test has not been met. Writ of prohibition is denied. The district attorney, in his brief, requests that this court take plenary jurisdiction pursuant to § 205 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. *71 673, No. 223, art. II, § 205, 17 P.S. § 211.205 (Supp. 1977). The request for plenary jurisdiction is denied. Petition for writ of prohibition is denied and the district attorney's request for assumption of plenary jurisdiction is denied. EAGEN, C.J., and NIX and MANDERINO, JJ., concur in the result. PACKEL, J., files a dissenting opinion. PACKEL, Justice, dissenting. In Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Freed, 424 Pa. 508, 228 A.2d 382 (1967), six of the seven Justices agreed that the court of common pleas could not enforce an order to compel testimony for a district attorney investigation. Mr. Justice Roberts, speaking for himself and two of the Justices, concluded that the district attorney's power to obtain the production of witnesses was "by court issued subpoenas, at preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings and trials" (424 Pa. at 519, 228 A.2d at 387). Mr. Justice Cohen stated quite positively: "I concur with the majority's decision that the District Attorney of Philadelphia does not possess the power to issue subpoenas" (424 Pa. at 519, 228 A.2d at 388). Mr. Justice Musmanno, using some of his more moderate language, concluded: "What the district attorney is arguing for, in effect, is that we allow him to make himself a one-man grand jury. Obviously this is constitutionally impossible." (424 Pa. at 525, 228 A.2d at 390). There were alternative bases for the conclusion reached by the court, i. e., whether the district attorney of Philadelphia should be viewed as a state official or as a municipal official. On either basis the answer was the same the district attorney does not have the power to subpoena for general investigative purposes and the court may not enforce any such alleged power. In disregard of this lack of power the court below acted on a petition filed by the district attorney that merely alleged a police shooting and made no reference to a case or controversy. *72 The petition prayed for a finding that the pleading of the Fifth Amendment by police officers would be improper and prayed for an order to police officers to answer questions, concerning the shooting, as put to them by the district attorney. After an argument and briefs of counsel the court below ordered and decreed that the district attorney can subpoena the officers. The order and decree was not final nor appealable. Counsel for the policemen seek in this Court a writ of prohibition on the ground that the court below lacked power or abused its discretion in sustaining the assertion of power by the district attorney. The ancient history of the writ of prohibition and its modern purpose are well described in Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird, 360 Pa. 94, 97-98, 61 A.2d 426, 428 (1948), as follows: Blackstone, in his Commentaries, Book III, Ch. 7, p. 112, described the writ in terms of keeping a court within its proper bounds: The vital importance of the writ for the due administration of justice is emphasized in Schlesinger Petition, 367 Pa. 476, 483, 81 A.2d 316, 319 (1951), as follows: It is important to keep in mind that the specific issue here involved is the jurisdiction of a trial court to enter an order or decree relating to testimony concerning a matter which is not before it directly or indirectly, other than as a bare petition to get the testimony. There is no statutory provision or any common law basis for litigation of the bare issue, disassociated from an actual case or legal controversy, of whether a person can be compelled to testify. Courts have inherent and statutory powers as to controversies and litigation and, in addition, have been given statutory jurisdiction to enforce investigative powers of diverse agencies. In this instance, however, we have the acknowledged lack of statutory *74 or inherent power in the district attorney and, by reason thereof, a lack of jurisdiction in the court to confer such a power on the district attorney. Although the case conceivably might be heard on a subsequent appeal, that is open to many conjectures. There could be a question of whether a police officer could or should risk contempt in order to have an appealable order. Even more serious is that the use of the assertive power and compliance, or the abandonment of the investigation, might well render the issue moot. This would mean that the issue could not be tested. In any event, this appears to be a classical case for this Court to assert its supreme power to prevent an inferior court from going out of its bounds in disregard of a prior holding of this Court. "The extraordinary Writ of Prohibition is issued as a matter of discretion to prevent a lower court from acting outside its jurisdiction and to prevent it from abusing its discretion. McNair's Petition, 324 Pa. 48, 187 A. 498 (1936). It is often used where the trial judge has acted in a blatantly unlawful manner. [Citations omitted]." Pirillo v. Takiff, 462 Pa. 511, 519, 341 A.2d 896, 899-900 (1975). It is the function of courts in proper circumstances to exercise their sound discretion in commanding testimony in actual cases before them, in either preliminary or final hearings, in grand jury proceedings, in trials and in administrative matters to enforce subpoenas pursuant to statutory authority. If this were only an ordinary question of possible abuse of discretion, prohibition might well be inappropriate. Yet, public concern, particularly in the criminal law field, with respect to the inadequacy of an ordinary appeal as well as proper order and regularity in judicial proceedings calls for the use of the writ of prohibition. Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Shiomos, 457 Pa. 104, 320 A.2d 134 (1974). The due administration of justice calls for a prompt blocking of an attempt of a lower court to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have. If a judge or the district attorney is to assert the bare power to question persons under oath for any purpose, it is for the legislature to say so. The Court could *75 then consider the constitutionality of such action. This Court, however, should not sanction the assertion of such a power which the legislature has not granted. It is incumbent upon this Court under its general supervisory authority over all the courts to prohibit in no uncertain terms the assertion of jurisdiction by the court below in a novel non-litigation proceeding which this Court had already clearly held is outside the jurisdiction of the court. [1] § 201 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. II, § 201, 17 P.S. § 211.201 provides in relevant part: "The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of . . . (2) all cases of mandamus or prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction . . .."