Harris v. Municipal Court for City of Wilmington
| Decision Date | 31 July 1969 |
| Citation | 256 A.2d 674 |
| Parties | Marian A. HARRIS, Roy L. Wagstaff, John C. Thomas, Kenneth H. Horowitz, Nannie F. Caulk, Paul N. Wilson, H. Blake Wilson, Pauline C. Wilson, William Hodsdon, and Mary Hodsdon, Petitioners, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the CITY OF WILMINGTON and the Honorable Thomas Herlihy, Jr., Chief Judge of said Court, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
William E. Taylor, Jr. of Taylor & Lindh, Wilmington, for petitioners.
Victor J. Colombo, Asst. City Sol., for Wilmington.
The questions here decided arise upon a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition seeking to prevent the Municipal Court of Wilmington from proceeding in a case against ten individuals charged with trespass and conspiracy to trespass in violation of 11 Del.C. §§ 105 and 871. The facts underlying the charges are not involved at this stage of the proceedings but, briefly, they involve a sit-in by the petitioners in the office of a real estate agent in connection with a demonstration for an open housing policy.
Following the filing of the petition, the City Solicitor of Wilmington was permitted to intervene. Upon the petitioners' motion for the issuance of a rule, the following questions arose: (1) Do the petitioners have another adequate remedy by way of Writ of Certiorari issuing from the Superior Court, and (2) In any event, should the application for a Writ of Prohibition directed to the Municipal Court be made in the first instance to the Superior Court?
Petitioners' basis for seeking the writ is their contention that the warrants of arrest under which they were taken into custody were issued without the finding by a judicial officer of probable cause for arrest. Previously, in Caulk v. Municipal Court, Del., 243 A.2d 707, upon application for a Writ of Prohibition by these same petitioners, this court held invalid warrants of arrest issued by the clerk of the Municipal Court by reason of Giordonello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503, which requires that a finding of probable cause for arrest may be made only by a neutral and detached judicial officer. We upheld the informations filed in the Municipal Court, however, and pointed out that the prosecutions could continue if valid warrants of arrest were subsequently issued and served on the petitioners.
New warrants, those sought to be attacked in this proceeding, were issued and the petitioners re-arrested on the pending charges. They promptly moved to quash the warrants for alleged lack of probable cause. On June 24, 1969, the motions to quash were denied in the Municipal Court.
Petitioners argue that they have no other remedy to review the propriety of the denial of their motions to quash for the reason that, while an appeal lies from the Municipal Court to the Superior Court, no appeal may be had in these cases because the maximum penalty for the offenses charged is insufficient to make them appealable. *
We address ourselves to the first point made by the City Solicitor, viz., that the remedy of a Writ of Prohibition is inappropriate when the petitioner has another adequate remedy.
In Canaday v. Superior Court, 10 Terry 332, 116 A.2d 678, we held that the Writ of Prohibition may not be distorted into a writ of review of proceedings which can be reviewed by ordinary appellate process. We recognized, however, that under some circumstances the writ may be allowed even when final appellate review exists when it appears from undisputed facts that a trial court is erroneously assuming personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has not been, nor can be, subjected to the court's jurisdiction. The reason for this apparent exception to the general rule is the avoiding of unreasonable delay and expense in defending an action which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Looney v. City of Wilmington, Del.
... ... Civ. A. 88-573-CMW ... United States District Court, D. Delaware ... October 23, 1989. 723 F. Supp. 1026 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Wilmington Police Department, including Officers DeHart and Roberts, set out to execute a Municipal Court search warrant on the first floor apartment at 1512 West 6th Street. The resident of that ... record of the cause in the Municipal Court to correct any errors of law appearing therein." Harris v. Municipal Court, 256 A.2d 674, 675 (Del.1969). In addition, relatively recent Superior Court ... ...
-
State v. Moorhead
... ... Supreme Court of Delaware ... Submitted: March 2, 1993 ... Decided: ... Meyers, Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, for appellant ... Bernard J. O'Donnell ... Court, Del.Supr., 252 A.2d 300, 302-303 (1969); Harris v. Municipal Court, Del.Supr., 256 A.2d 674, 675 (1969); ... ...
-
State v. Roberts
... ... Supreme Court of Delaware ... Sept. 13, 1971 ... Petition for ... Gen., Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellant ... Alfred ... Court, Del.Supr., 252 A.2d 300, 302--303 (1969); Harris v. Municipal Court, Del.Supr., 256 A.2d 674, 675 (1969); ... ...
-
Goldstein v. City of Wilmington
... ... Louis GOLDSTEIN, Petitioner Below, Appellant, ... MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the CITY OF WILMINGTON, and Judge Carl ... Goldstein, Respondents Below, Appellees ... Rash v. State, Del.Supr., 318 A.2d 603 (1974); see Harris v. Municipal Court, Del.Supr., 256 A.2d 674, 675 (1969) ... As appellant asserts, ... ...