Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher
| Decision Date | 13 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 8946,8946 |
| Citation | 270 So.2d 228 |
| Parties | PIER I IMPORTS, INC., et al. v. Hon. Sargent PITCHER, Jr. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bert K. Robinson, Baton Rouge, for appellants.
Roy Fugler and Cheney Joseph, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellee.
Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and PETERS, JJ.
This suit was filed by Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Paul Gerstenberger and Holly Tatsch, wherein they seek an injunction restraining the defendant, Sargent Pitcher, Jr., who is the District Attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish, from prosecuting plaintiffs Gerstenberger and Tatsch for violation of the Sunday Closing Law. The Lower Court rendered judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the suit and the petitioners have taken this appeal.
The facts disclose that Pier 1 Imports, Inc., was operating a market on Florida Boulevard in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and that petitioners Gerstenberger and Tatsch were employees of this organization. These two petitioners were charged with the sale, on the 3rd and 10th day of January, 1971, of an alarm clock and a wicker headboard in violation of Title 51, Section 194 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Said statute is part of the Sunday Closing Law of this state.
It is alleged by petitioners that they have proven open and notorious violation of the Sunday Closing Law. The criminal charges filed, however, were the very first prosecution in East Baton Rouge Parish under this law. Petitioners claim further that no prosecution under this law has been filed since this particular prosecution was filed, despite the knowledge brought home to the District Attorney of the open violation of the law.
Defendant, Sargent Pitcher, Jr., has taken the position that this is the only charge filed and that he would not file a prosecution unless a citizen files an affidavit. His testimony is to the effect that he accepted charges from a citizen complaint, and that it was on this basis that he became involved in the prosecution of this particular case.
There is no showing of unjust discrimination or denial of equal protection of the law in this particular case. The prosecutor, as a quasi-judicial officer in Louisiana, must determine who, when and how to prosecute. He is not a law enforcement officer, but he has a duty, when confronted with a citizen's complaint alleging a violation of a state statute, to take steps to determine whether or not the accused person is in fact, in violation of an enforceable law. This is exactly what is being done in this case.
Although petitioner contends that the prosecutor should be arresting and charging persons with the violation of a law which plaintiff himself contends is unenforceable and invalid, such is not the case. In State v. Anderson, 206 La. 986, 20 So.2d 288, the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Skinner
...to prove "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the State in enforcement of the statute. See Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher, La.App., 270 So.2d 228 (1972). In conclusion, we hold that LSA-R.S. 32:705 is constitutional. Hence, the district court erred in sustaining the defend......
-
City of Eugene v. Crooks
...is not irrational. People v. L. A. Witherill, Inc., 29 N.Y.2d 446, 449, 328 N.Y.S.2d 668, 278 N.E.2d 905 (1972); Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher, 270 So.2d 228 (La.App.1972), cert. den., 272 So.2d 696 Otherwise, defendants' allegations are little more than an attack on the motives of the co......
-
Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher, 53147
...Tatsch applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 264 So.2d 674; 270 So.2d 228. Writ denied. There is no merit in the BARHAM, J., dissents from the writ refusal and assigns reasons. BARHAM, Justice (dissenting from the refu......