City of Detroit v. Recorder's Court Judge, Traffic and Ordinance Division

• Decision Date: 21 August 1978
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78-2362
• Citation: 85 Mich.App. 284,271 N.W.2d 202
• Parties: CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RECORDER'S COURT JUDGE, TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE DIVISION, Defendant-Appellant. 85 Mich.App. 284, 271 N.W.2d 202
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 202

271 N.W.2d 202

CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RECORDER'S COURT JUDGE, TRAFFIC AND ORDINANCE DIVISION,

Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 78-2362.

85 Mich.App. 284, 271 N.W.2d 202

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Aug. 21, 1978.

Released for Publication Nov. 13, 1978.

[85 MICHAPP 286] Metry, Metry & Sanom by Frederick E. Metry and Kenneth J. Kurncz, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Craig, Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and BASHARA and MAHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a circuit court order of superintending control which requires him to follow certain procedures in the processing of nontraffic ordinance violation cases.

[85 MICHAPP 287] This controversy involves the use of preprinted ticket forms to serve as complaints, and as the bases for the issuance of arrest warrants, in nontraffic ordinance violation cases before Recorder's Court Traffic and Ordinance Division. Typically, the arresting officer, having seen a violation of the ordinance being committed in his presence, arrests the respondent and completes a ticket-complaint form. The substance of the offense is written in on the ticket form as, for example, "accosting and soliciting to commit an act of prostitution". The arresting officer takes the respondent to the police station, where the officer signs the ticket and swears to the facts therein before a deputy court clerk. ¹ The respondent is offered the opportunity to post bail, as required by M.C.L. § 780.581; M.S.A. § 28.872(1) and People v. Dixon, 392 Mich. 691, 222 N.W.2d 749 (1974). The respondent is then arraigned before a Traffic and Ordinance Division judge. An arraigning officer, not the arresting officer, presents the ticket-complaint to the judge.

Appellant has consistently dismissed nontraffic ordinance violation complaints presented in ticket form. He has refused to issue arrest warrants or to order the respondent retained in custody without the personal appearance of the arresting officer at the arraignment proceedings, because he believes that the procedures used by the city in processing nontraffic ordinance violation cases are illegal.

The City of Detroit filed a complaint for superintending control in Wayne County Circuit Court to seek an order requiring appellant to process ticket complaints. The circuit judge issued a series of orders directing appellant to accept the complaints. The last order of clarification, issued on May 30, 1978, provided in pertinent part:

[85 MICHAPP 288] "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon the arrest of any person for violation of a non-traffic ordinance in the City of Detroit, a complaint shall be filed, under oath, setting forth the nature of the offense, accompanied by a summons issued out of the clerk's office commanding the respondent to appear on the date set forth to answer said complaint;

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that if the respondent shall tender a plea of guilty the Judge shall thereupon accept the plea of guilty; if the respondent fails to appear the Judge shall then examine the matters set forth in the complaint, and, upon a finding of probable cause, shall forthwith issue a warrant for the arrest of said person; if the respondent pleads not guilty the Court shall thereupon examine the complaint and if there is a finding of probable cause, shall forthwith issue a warrant pursuant to the complaint;

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings hereby ordered shall in no wise interfere with the Court's authority to issue a recognizance for the respondent's appearance with such sureties as the Court may in its discretion direct.

"Trial shall be had upon the complaint and warrant as hereinbefore mentioned."

Appellant appeals from that order and raises several issues worthy of discussion.

First, appellant challenges the power of the circuit court to issue an order of superintending control. M.C.L. § 600.615; M.S.A. § 27A.615 provides that the circuit courts have general superintending control over all inferior tribunals. Superintending control is the proper vehicle by which to challenge a generalized practice of an inferior court, in this case the Recorder's Court Traffic and Ordinance Division. Cahill v. 15th District Judge, 393 Mich. 137, 224 N.W.2d 24 (1974); Michigan Association for Retarded Citizens v. Wayne County Probate Judge, 79 Mich.App. 487, 493, 261 N.W.2d 60 (1977). In the case at bar plaintiff had no other adequate remedy [85 MICHAPP 289] by appeal. GCR 1963, 711.2. Plaintiff would have had to challenge each dismissal separately, a remedy which would be too time-consuming and burdensome to be called "adequate". Because appellant's method of conducting his general court proceedings in all cases which present a common, legal and factual situation is at issue, superintending control is the proper avenue for relief.

Appellant next raises several issues regarding the Detroit Police Department practices in nontraffic ordinance violation cases. M.C.L. § 726.22; M.S.A. § 27.3572, the statute governing procedures for ordinary violation cases in Recorder's Court, provides:

"Said recorder's court shall have exclusive cognizance of all prosecutions for offenses arising under this act, or any ordinance or regulation of the common council. All such prosecutions shall be commenced by filing with the clerk of said court a complaint, in writing, in the form of an affidavit, duly sworn to before said clerk, and subscribed by the person making the complaint, and having endorsed thereon the proper jurat of said clerk; and it shall be deemed sufficient to set forth, in said complaint, the offense complained of, according to its substance. When a complaint shall be filed as herein provided, a summons shall be issued by the clerk of said court, commanding the respondent in said complaint to appear before said court on a day therein mentioned, to answer to said complaint, and if said respondent shall fail to appear in obedience to said summons, warrants may be issued by the clerk upon the order of said court, for the arrest of said respondent, who shall be committed to the jail of Wayne county to await trial upon said complaint, unless he enter into a recognizance for his appearance to answer to said complaint, in such sum, and with such sureties as said court may, by a general or special order direct. A warrant may be issued in the first instance, upon the order of said court. The trial shall be had and determined upon said complaint, and upon pleadings, which may be amended, in the same [85 MICHAPP 290] manner as indictments or informations and pleadings under the general laws of the state."

This statute requires (1) a written complaint, which is (2) sworn before a clerk and (3) subscribed by the complainant, and which (4) sets forth the substance of the offense. This...