Court Opinion

ID: 9726702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:04:39.96586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:29.876927
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P. J.
(dissenting). I dissent. As the majority opinion notes, MCLA 728.1; MSA 27.3651 establishes the jurisdiction of common *618pleas court. I conclude that justices of the peace in the city of Detroit did not have any criminal jurisdiction immediately prior to the creation of the common pleas court, that justices of the peace of Detroit did not then have authority to issue search warrants and, accordingly, that a judge of Detroit Common Pleas Court has no authority to issue a search warrant for premises within the city of Detroit.
I would affirm the trial court and hold that 1885 PA 161 deprived justices of the peace in Detroit of all criminal jurisdiction, including the authority to issue search warrants for premises within the city. The statement in People v Ewald, 302 Mich 31; 4 NW2d 456 (1942), that proceedings for the discovery of crime are not prosecutions and proceedings for crimes within the meaning of the recorder’s court jurisdiction statute does not require a different result. Ewald involved the authority of a one-man Wayne County grand jury, conducting an investigation into crimes in Detroit, to issue an arrest warrant for a crime committed within the city. The recorder’s court jurisdiction statute contains a specific proviso preserving the authority of the grand jury to inquire into and make accusation of crimes committed within the city. The instant case does not involve the authority of a grand jury, one-man or otherwise.
The majority’s construction of 1885 PA 161 results in the anomaly that the only vestige of criminal jurisdiction retained by Detroit Common Pleas Court is the power"to issue search warrants. I believe it preferable to read 1885 PA 161 as eliminating all Detroit common pleas criminal jurisdiction, including the authority to issue search warrants, thus avoiding the anomaly adverted to.