Court Opinion

ID: 9629404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:42:09.231071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:31.943572
License: Public Domain

Andersen, A.C.J.
(dissenting) — I would hold that when a law enforcement officer issues a citation for an offense, but the original is not filed in the district court, the prosecuting attorney is not thereby precluded from filing an information charging the offense directly in the superior court. The reason for this is that until the original of the citation is filed in the district court that court has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the case.
A few general words as to citations and their use is appropriate. Usually they are used in traffic cases, where they are known to one and all as traffic citations or traffic "tickets." RCW 46.64.015; JTR 2.01. Citations are also available for certain nontraffic offenses such as this one, however, and when so used, the citation form is basically *922the same as that used in traffic cases. JCrR 2.01. To insure uniformity, the citation forms for use in both traffic and nontraffic cases are approved by the Administrator for the Courts and are often referred to as "uniform" citations. JTR 2.01 (i); JCrR 2.01(a)(4); JCrR 2.01(b)(6).
The "uniform" citation consists of a set of printed forms, the face of each being substantially identical. The citing officer, who is charged with filling out the form, writes the necessary citing information on the face of the form and on the copies at the same time through the use of carbon paper or the like. The original then serves as the complaint, and one of the copies serves as the citation which is given to the person being cited.
As the majority opinion points out, the dispositive issue is whether the district court ever acquired jurisdiction. Therefore, I will address only that aspect of the case.
In the case before us, the district court had no jurisdiction over the case at any time because' no complaint was ever filed in that court. The court rules provide in this regard that
[s]uch citation and notice when signed by the citing officer and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed a lawful complaint for the purpose of initiating prosecution of the offense charged therein.
(Italics mine.) JCrR 2.01(b)(4) (part).
In construing the justice court traffic rules, which contain identical language to that just quoted, see JTR 2.01(d)(1), the State Supreme Court held:
These rules clearly require that the ticket be filed as a complaint. In the absence of such a ticket or other appropriate complaint, a court has no jurisdiction to proceed, and no authority is needed to pinpoint, demonstrate or support such a basic requirement of due process. The fact that the traffic ticket was belatedly admitted as an exhibit in the case certainly did not confer jurisdiction on the court. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the subject matter was not waived by entering a plea, assuming that a plea was entered in this case. The conclusion is inescapable that without a complaint on *923file there was no jurisdiction for either the municipal court or the superior court to proceed in this matter. The conviction is therefore void.
(Italics mine.) Orting v. Rucshner, 66 Wn.2d 732, 734, 404 P.2d 983 (1965). The holding in Orting should control here, and until the original copy of the "uniform" citation comprising the complaint was filed in the district court, that court had no jurisdiction to do anything in connection with the case and its action or nonaction was immaterial. On the other hand, since the prosecuting attorney filed an information directly in the Superior Court concerning the same offense, that court did have jurisdiction of the case. I would therefore hold that the dismissal of the action by the Superior Court with prejudice was improper.
This is a matter of some importance to law enforcement because of the State Supreme Court's decision in State v. Cummings, 87 Wn.2d 612, 555 P.2d 835 (1976). Cummings held that the abandonment of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor prosecution in district court bars the later filing of charges in superior court. That now being the law, the effect of the majority's opinion in this case, as I view it, is that once an officer writes a citation then the prosecuting attorney may well be bound to try the case in district court — notwithstanding that the prosecuting attorney feels that the consequences, severity or other aspects of the case are such that it should be filed and handled in a court of general jurisdiction, the superior court.
Here the San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney had established a policy of prosecuting commercial fisheries violations in the superior court. The reasons for that policy are not pertinent other than to point out that it was the prosecutor's decision to make.1 While it is regrettable that defense counsel had to go to the trouble of phoning in an oral appearance to the district court and mailing a written *924notice of appearance and a motion to that court, unnecessarily as it turned out, it should also be noted that neither the defendant nor his counsel was ever required to go to that court.2 No prejudice to the defendant was shown.
Finally, for sound reasons of public policy, I would decide this case as herein expressed.
One reason is that the prosecuting attorney is the elected chief law enforcement official of the county he or she serves. It should therefore be the prosecuting attorney, the one directly responsible to the electorate for the standard of law enforcement in the county, who decides in which of two courts having concurrent jurisdiction a case should be charged or tried. A final irrevocable decision should not have to be made at the scene by the officer who happens to come upon the violation, since the officer may at the time be unaware of all of the factual and legal aspects of the violation.
Another reason for holding as I would is that to do otherwise might tend toward the abandonment of the present system of citing offenders in certain misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases in favor of a system whereby offenders would instead be arrested and booked, as officers presently have the authority to do. With the officer arresting offenders, the prosecuting attorney would then be provided with the opportunity to decide in which court the-case would be filed. As explained in State v. Doolittle, 69 Wn.2d 744, 749, 419 P.2d 1012 (1966), the purpose served by issuing a citation
is to avoid the unceremonious removal, perhaps in the middle of the night, of the responsible citizen from the highway and his subsequent incarceration in a local jail in lieu of bail.
*925I would hold that the San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney did have the right to file this case in the Superior Court, as he did, and would reverse the trial court's order dismissing the case with prejudice.

The trial court also specifically concluded:
"The prosecuting attorney's policy of charging commercial fishing violations in superior court rather than in district court is a legitimate exercise in prosecutorial discretion." Conclusion of law No. 1.

The trial court found: "While the defendant had never appeared physically in district court for arraignment or for any other purpose, and his attorney had not personally appeared before District Court Judge George O. Moseley, his attorney had talked with the judge on the phone soon after the defendant was issued the uniform citation, had filed a written Notice of Appearance in district court following that conversation, and had applied in writing to the court for an order of dismissal." Finding of fact No. 7 (part).