Maxwell v. O'Connor
| Decision Date | 22 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 46167 |
| Citation | 117 N.E.2d 326,1 Ill.App.2d 124 |
| Parties | MAXWELL v. O'CONNOR. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John J. Mortimer, Corporation Counsel, Chicago, I. Louis Karton, Head of Appeals & Review Division, A. A. Pantelis, William J. Kafka, Joseph F. Fox, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.
Louis T. Herzon, Chicago, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant from an order of the Criminal Court of Cook County, directing defendant to return to petitioner all records, fingerprints, files, and other memoranda pertaining to two cases against plaintiff filed in the Municipal Court of Chicago, entitled People, etc. v. Maxwell, No. 49 MC 19158, and People, etc. v. Maxwell, No. 49 MC 29656. The proceeding was instituted to compel compliance with Section 780e, Chap. 38, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1951, entitled, 'Sheriffs and police officers to furnish fingerprints to department.' It is therein provided that it is the duty of the sheriffs and chief police officers of cities, villages and towns in Illinois to furnish to the Department of Public Safety copies of fingerprints of persons charged with certain types of crime. It is therein further provided as follows: 'All photographs, fingerprints or other records of identification so taken shall, upon the acquittal of the person charged with the crime, or upon his being released, without being convicted, be returned to him.' Plaintiff was arrested on a charge of assault and carrying a concealed weapon. He was acquitted by the Municipal court on both charges and he then filed his petition in the Criminal court, which entered the order here involved.
The question with which we are confronted at the threshold of this case is whether the Criminal court had jurisdiction. The sole basis upon which such jurisdiction can rest is that this is a criminal case, a quasi-criminal case or a civil case incident to a criminal or quasi-criminal matter over which the Criminal court had jurisdiction. The two cases in question were not in the Criminal court; none of the matters sought to be returned ever came under the jurisdiction of the Criminal court, nor were they ever introduced in evidence in any proceeding in the Criminal court.
The right under the statute which plaintiff seeks to enforce has been adjudged by the courts as being more in the nature of a right of privacy. Miller v. Gillespie, 196 Mich. 423, 426, 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Valentine
...heard. The statute before us has been amended from time to time, presumably in response to the decisions in Maxwell v. O'Connor, 1 Ill.App.2d 124, 117 N.E.2d 326 (1st Dist.1953) (no jurisdiction in criminal court of Cook County); Kolb v. O'Connor, 14 Ill.App.2d 81, 142 N.E.2d 818 (1st Dist.......
- Mason v. Papadopulos
-
People v. Lewerenz
...County has no jurisdiction to order the return of photographs, finger prints and other means of identification. In Maxwell v. O'Connor, 1 Ill.App.2d 124, 117 N.E.2d 326, we said that the right the plaintiff therein sought to enforce has been adjudged by the courts as being in the nature of ......
-
Kolb v. O'Connor
...provision of the Illinois constitution, and transferred the case to the Appellate Court for the first district. In Maxwell v. O'Connor, 1 Ill.App.2d 124, 117 N.E.2d 326, the Appellate Court held, without passing upon the applicability of the statute to a city official, a question which had ......