Court Opinion

ID: 9672869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:01.307492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.793896
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
On August 6, 1975, a Recorder’s Court Judge for the City of Detroit issued a search warrant for a dwelling house located at 3474 Fairview in the City of Detroit. The warrant authorized the seizure of various drugs, narcotics paraphernalia, guns, and monies used and earned in narcotics trafficking.
Pursuant to the warrant, a narcotics raid was conducted on the premises during which police seized monies in the amount of $17,178.98, assorted drugs, and other personal property.
The officers also seized various documents that indicated that the premises was the residence of three individuals, Moses Garrett, Charles Garrett, and Ronald Garrett.
No arrests were made during the raid or subsequent thereto.
Subsequent to the seizure of the money, the State of Michigan issued a jeopardy assessment against one of the lessees, Ronald Garrett. The Detroit Police Department paid over $15,297.77 to the State of Michigan to satisfy the assessment, and paid over the remaining $1,881.20 to the treasurer of the City of Detroit.
*481On April 15, 1977, Zack Garrett, through his attorney, filed a motion in recorder’s court for the return of the seized monies.1 The motion alleged that Zack Garrett was the lessee of 3474 Fairview during the raid which took place in 1975, and that the monies seized were his.
Appellant, City of Detroit, answered this motion by claiming a question of title as to the monies was -presented and that recorder’s court lacked jurisdiction to rule on such a motion. The court disagreed and ordered the appellant to pay the monies over to Zack Garrett. The City of Detroit then appealed to this Court for emergency application for leave to appeal and moved for a stay of proceedings. On April 19, 1977, this Court ordered that the application for emergency leave to appeal be held in abeyance and granted the motion for immediate consideration and stay of proceedings. On May 25, 1977, this Court granted the application for leave to appeal.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether or not recorder’s court possesses the jurisdiction to order the return of the monies seized during the raid to Zack Garrett.
The jurisdiction of the Detroit Recorder’s Court is set forth in MCLA 726.11; MSA 27.3561.
’’The said recorder’s court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all prosecutions and proceedings in behalf of the people of this state, for crimes, misdemeanors, and offenses arising under the laws of this state, and committed within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit, except in cases cognizable by the police court of the city of Detroit, or by the justices of the peace of said city; and shall have power to issue all lawful writs and process, and to do all lawful acts which may be necessary and proper to carry into com*482píete effect the powers and jurisdiction given by this act, and especially to issue all writs and process, and to do all acts which the circuit courts of this state, within their respective jurisdictions, may, in like cases, issue and do by the laws of this state: Provided, that this section shall not be construed to prevent the grand jury for the county of Wayne from inquiring into and presenting indictments, as heretofore, for crimes and offenses committed within the limits of said city.” (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court must first determine whether or not the instant matter involves a criminal prosecution or proceeding which is necessary for recorder’s court jurisdiction.
In People v Ewald, 302 Mich 31; 4 NW2d 456 (1942), the Supreme Court of this state said:
"It is our conclusion that the exclusiveness of jurisdiction of the recorder’s court does not extend to the initiatory step in the institution of proceedings, but merely to matters subsequent thereto connected with bringing an offender to trial * * * .” 302 Mich at 40.
This Court has interpreted the Ewald case in People v Moss, 68 Mich App 614, 617; 244 NW2d 1 (1976):
"Nor do we find that the 'original and exclusive’ jurisdiction of recorder’s Court, MCLA 726.11; MSA 27.3561, applies to more than 'prosecutions and proceedings’, People v Ewald, 302 Mich 31; 4 NW2d 456 (1942). That exclusiveness does not apply to proceedings for the discovery of crime, Ewald, supra, and search warrants are for the discovery of crime.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant matter, no arrests were made, and no criminal proceedings are pending. The issuance *483of a search warrant was the only action taken by the court. Under these circumstances, the controversy would seem to be outside the jurisdiction of recorder’s court.
However, MCLA 726.11; MSA 27.3561 has been construed to grant recorder’s court the authority to determine the right to possession of money seized by law enforcement officials.
"We do hold that in criminal cases similar to the one before us in this appeal, it is the ancillary right and duty of the recorder’s court to determine the right to possession of money or goods illegally seized by law enforcing officials.” People v Rosa, 382 Mich 163, 168; 169 NW2d 297 (1969).
The facts in the instant matter are clearly distinguishable from those presented in the Rosa case, supra.
In Rosa, supra, an individual was seeking the return of monies seized from his hotel room. The individual was arrested and forcibly brought before recorder’s court. The money was seized in his presence and from a room that was registered to him. Hence, the only issue presented to the court was who had the paramount right to possession of the monies, the individual or the state.
In the instant matter, Zack Garrett was not forcibly brought before the court. On the contrary, Mr. Garrett has filed a motion in recorder’s court requesting the court to order the City of Detroit to pay over the seized monies to him.
Unlike Rosa, the monies seized in the case at bar were not taken in Mr. Garrett’s presence nor from premises registered in his name. Therefore, Mr. Garrett’s motion raises two questions for consideration: 1) who has the paramount right to possession of the monies, Mr. Garrett or the city; *484and 2) whether Mr. Garrett was the owner of the monies at the time of their seizure.
The second question raises an issue outside the scope of recorder’s court jurisdiction as evidenced by Rosa, supra.
"We are not considering an appeal involving an action that was started by defendant-appellee in the recorder’s court to try question of title, but a case where defendant was forcibly brought before the recorder’s court, where the issue presented is the superior right to possession as between the seizing authority and the one from whom the property was seized.
"We do not interpret the Court of Appeals’ decision (as does plaintiff) as an authorization to the recorder’s court to exercise general jurisdiction determining questions of title, and specifically hold that the statute does not grant such powers.” 382 Mich at 167, 168.
Accordingly, we rule that the facts presented in the instant matter would require recorder’s court to decide a question of title which is outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The proper forum would be in a court having civil jurisdiction.
Reversed. No costs, a public question being involved.
D. C. Riley, J., concurred.

 This action is for the $1,881.20 retained by the City of Detroit.