City of St. Paul v. Webb, 37793

• Decision Date: 10 July 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37793,37793
• Citation: 256 Minn. 210,76 A.L.R.2d 1423,97 N.W.2d 638
• Parties: , 76 A.L.R.2d 1423 CITY OF ST. PAUL, Respondent, v. Robert WEBB, Relator.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 638

97 N.W.2d 638

256 Minn. 210, 76 A.L.R.2d 1423

CITY OF ST. PAUL, Respondent, v. Robert WEBB, Relator.

No. 37793.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 10, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an offense is not a felony a police officer cannot arrest without a warrant unless the offense was committed or attempted in his presence.

A criminal court lacks jurisdiction over a person who is before the court pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the arresting officer, where the person restricted his appearance solely to attacking the jurisdiction of the court, and no warrant has been issued prior to the appearance.

Held, under the files and records here, that the proceedings heretofore taken against the defendant be annulled, and the writ of prohibition made absolute.

Otis H. Godfrey, St. Paul, for relator.

Louis P. Sheahan, Corp. Counsel, Robert E. Faricy, St. Paul, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

This matter involves an order of the municipal court of St. Paul denying defendant's motion for dismissal of proceedings against him. It is his claim that the court had no jurisdiction over his person; that he was illegally arrested for an alleged misdemeanor; and that he had no personal knowledge of any alleged violation.

Defendant's claims as set out in his petition for a writ of prohibition are briefly as follows: That he, Robert Webb, was arrested about 11:00 p.m., February 5, 1959, at his home, 779 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul, by two police officers of the city of St. Paul; that at that time and place defendant asked the officers what he was charged with and was denied any information other than being told in effect that the officers had a radio call stating an automobile with his license number had a 'hit and run' accident on University Avenue. It is undisputed that any misdemeanor involved was not committed in the presence of the officers and that they had no warrant for his arrest.

Defendant further claims that he informed the officers that they could not arrest him without a warrant and said he wanted to telephone his attorney but was told that 'they would take him down by use of force and he wasn't calling anybody.' He asserts in the petition that he was arrested illegally and that his automobile which 'was parked locked in front of his house, was hauled in at their orders, unlawfully.'

He claims that upon being taken to the city jail he further demanded that he be permitted to telephone his attorney and be allowed to put up bail but was denied those rights; and that when he asked why he was being held was told he was being held for investigation. He further asserts that he was not promptly taken before a judge, although the municipal court of St. Paul was in session at 9 a.m. and throughout the day on February 6, and was also on February 7; also that he was held incommunicado until after being forced, by an officer in the traffic and accident bureau of the St. Paul police department, to submit to questioning and to testify against himself. He claims he was requested to make statements which were put in writing by the officer but that he was not given a copy of the statement and that he was held illegally in jail until 11:55 a.m., February 6, and was ordered to report in municipal court at 9 a.m., February 9.

At that time, according to the petition, his attorney appeared specially for him in municipal court and moved for a dismissal on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over defendant's person. He claims that the court in answer to the request of his counsel as to the purported charge stated that there was a complaint by the city prosecutor that on February 5, 1959, at 10:15 p.m. defendant drove a motor vehicle on University Avenue, St. Paul, leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to give proper information, in violation of the ordinance. The matter was passed until February 11 when defendant's counsel, according to the petition, again appeared specially before the same judge and objected on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction on a special appearance. The objection, or motion, was denied and the trial was set for February 18, 1959. The defendant refused to plead so the court entered a plea of not guilty for him.

The petition further stated that defendant's attorney had been informed by another judge of the municipal court that the matter had been taken over by him and that he had required defendant to appear before him on March 6, 1959, to stand trial without a jury. The petition also set out that the defendant's attorney informed the court that defendant stood on his special appearance and objected to the jurisdiction of the court but that the court insisted that defendant appear before him and be tried notwithstanding.

On March 5, 1959, defendant moved this court for a writ of prohibition and the following order was issued:

'Upon the filing of the within Motion and the attached Petition, cause therefor having been shown to this Court, let a Writ of Prohibition issued as in said petition prayed for, commanding said Respondents refrain from any further proceedings concerning the prosecution of Robert Webb, Relator, as defendant, in the matters under Municipal Court file number 164290, wherein relator is named as defendant, and to show cause before this Court on the 7th day of April, 1959, why said respondents should not be permanently restrained from any further proceedings and the proceedings heretofore taken in said matter be annulled. Let service of this Writ be made upon said respondents.'

The next day the writ was issued commanding the municipal court to refrain from any further proceedings against the defendant in the matter of the alleged violation and to show cause before this court on April 7, 1959, why they should not be absolutely restrained from any further proceedings and any proceedings heretofore taken be annulled.

Respondents' brief in answer to the order to show cause states, among other things, that defendant was brought to police headquarters on February 6, 1959; that at that time a traffic ticket was prepared by a police officer and that no copy was given defendant; that the records of the municipal court indicate that defendant was released upon posting $100 bail in court and court appearance was scheduled for February 9; that on that date defendant appeared in court with his attorney, at which time a complaint was read charging defendant with leaving the scene of an automobile accident without stopping to give the proper information in violation of the ordinance of St. Paul; that no plea was entered at that time; that the case was continued to February 11, 1959, as appears in 'Annex A' ¹ of the brief, a certified transcript of the abbreviated minutes on the matter. ²

The brief of respondents further sets out that on February 11, 1959, the court denied the motion of defendant's counsel for dismissal and set the trial for February 18, at which time it is claimed that said counsel asked for a longer time to take exception to the ruling of the court, and further that defendant appeared and was present in the court room as indicated by 'Annex B.'

The brief also states that on February 18 the city of St. Paul by its prosecuting attorney appeared in municipal court prepared for trial and that when the case was called counsel for defendant served upon the court a temporary writ of prohibition and an order to show cause in connection therewith, and that about the same time a copy of said order was served on the said city of St. Paul. ³

Respondents urge that defendant's motion for a writ be denied for failure to comply with procedural requirements of M.S.A. § 587.01. It also sets out in part 27 M.S.A. c. 488, Appendix 3, § 35 (St. Paul Municipal Court), as follows:

'In cases where alleged offenders shall be in custody, and be brought before the court or the clerk without process, the clerk shall enter upon the records of the court a brief statement of the offense with which the offender is charged, which statement shall stand in place of a complaint, unless the court shall direct a formal complaint to be made. The plea of the defendant shall be 'guilty' or 'not guilty.' In case of a failure to plead, the clerk shall enter a plea of 'not guilty.' * * *.'

It is respondents' claim that the record shows that the defendant refused to enter a plea to the complaint above referred to and the court entered a plea of not guilty. In answer to defendant's claim that the lack of formal complaint violated his right, respondents claim that the said § 35 provides for an oral complaint entered upon the records of the court and that the records show that this requirement has been complied with and that defendant's rights have not been violated by lack of a formal complaint.

With respect to defendant's contention that he was arrested without a warrant, M.S.A. § 629.34 provides that a police officer may without a warrant arrest a person for a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; clauses (2), (3), and (4) of the same section provide for arrest without a warrant in connection with the commission of a felony, which is not involved here. Where an offense is not a felony the officer cannot arrest without a warrant unless the offense was committed or attempted in his presence. State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 195 N.W. 789.

It would seem to us from the files and records of the proceedings herein that the appearance of defendant and his attorney in court were made specially. The verified petition, the affidavit of the defendant, the traffic court matters of February 11, 1959, and the brief of the respondent relating to the February 11 appearance of defendant and his attorney all refer to special appearances made for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court. While the question might be asked as to whether a special appearance attacking the jurisdiction of the court may be made in a...