Whittle v. Munshower
| Decision Date | 24 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
| Citation | 155 A.2d 670,221 Md. 258 |
| Parties | Hiram WHITTLE et al., etc. v. Elmer F. MUNSHOWER, Individually and as Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Hiram Whittle, in pro. per., Baltimore, for appellants.
Clayton A. Dietrich, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, to which a demurrer was filed. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, but the record does not show the entry of any final judgment. For this reason, the appeal must be dismissed as premature. See Surrey Inn, Inc. v. Jennings, 215 Md. 446, 455, 138 A.2d 658; Martin G. Imbach, Inc. v. Deegan 208 Md. 115, 119, 117 A.2d 864; Penny v. Department of Md. State Police, 186 Md. 10, 45 A.2d 741; and cases therein cited. In Walter v. Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County, 179 Md. 665, 22 A.2d 472 and Watts v. President, etc. of Village of Port Deposit, 46 Md. 500, the rule as to the necessity of a final judgment at law before an appeal will lie, was expressly applied to petitions for mandamus. We note, however, that in the Penny case, supra, and the Walter case, supra, this Court nevertheless took occasion to express an opinion on the merits. We are disposed to do so in the instant case, rather than to follow the procedure adopted in the Imbach case, supra.
The petition alleged that Edgar Whittle, of whose estate the petitioner had been appointed administrator, died on July 7, 1942 'as a result of a conspiracy against him.' It alleged that Edgar Whittle had been employed by the Glenn L. Martin Company in Baltimore County for about three months prior to his death and was falsely accused by employees of the company of 'having made a defective piece of material', and that this charge 'led to' his death. The petition alleges that The prayer of the petition was that the Superintendent 'release to your Petitioners all information in the possession of the Maryland State Police * * * concerning criminal charges that have been made against Edgar Whittle'.
It is perfectly clear that a person applying for a writ of mandamus against a public official must show a clear legal right in himself and a corresponding imperative duty on the part of the defendant. Jones v. House of Reformation, 176 Md. 43, 51, 3 A.2d 728, and cases cited; Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 288, 13 A.2d 348. See also Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86, 90, 40 A.2d 319, 156 A.L.R. 324. In Pressman v. Elgin, 187 Md. 446, 451, 50 A.2d 560, 169 A.L.R. 646, we held (Judge Markell dissenting) that a statutory provision directing the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to keep his records open to public inspection imposed a ministerial duty, which could be enforced by mandamus by an attorney seeking to obtain information contained in certain accident reports required by law to be made. The appellant seeks to analogize that holding to the instant case, because of a general duty imposed upon the State Police to 'prevent and detect crime', under Code (1957), Art. 88B, sec. 20. (See, however, secs. 22, and 23(a), and Little v. State, 204 Md. 518, 521, 102 A.2d 501.) But we are aware of no statutory provision that declares that reports made by state police to their superior officer, or information gathered by them in the course of their investigations of reported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Sheridan
...has already made this decision. In the absence of statute, police records are generally held to be confidential, Whittle v. Munshower, 221 Md. 258, 155 A.2d 670 (1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 981, 80 S.Ct. 1069, 4 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1960). Our statute relaxes this confidentiality, but only to the......
-
Robinson v. State
...records], then the common law rule applies under which 'it is generally held that police records are confidential.' Whittle v. Munshower, 221 Md. 258, 261 (1959)[, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 981, 80 S.Ct. 1069, 4 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1960) ]."7 Our holding in Jacocks, 50 Md.App. 132, 436 A.2d 930, doe......
-
Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
...a photograph...." That, of course, includes police records and "mug shots." 57 Op.Att'y Gen. 518, 519 (1972); compare Whittle v. Munshower, 221 Md. 258, 155 A.2d 670 (1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 981, 80 S.Ct. 1069, 4 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1960), decided before enactment of the State Public Informa......
-
Kardy v. Shook
...County, 179 Md. 665, 22 A.2d 472; Penny v. Dept. of Md. State Police, 186 Md. 10, 45 A.2d 741; State v. Haas, supra; Whittle v. Munshower, 221 Md. 258, 155 A.2d 670; Bd. of Ed. of Montgomery County v. Montgomery County, 237 Md. 191, 205 A.2d The granting of such requests has usually been ba......
-
RETRIBUTIVE EXPUNGEMENT.
...allowed expungement of misdemeanor convictions if they occurred before age twenty-one. Id. at 124. (100) See, e.g., Whittle v. Munshower, 155 A.2d 670, 670 (Md. 1959) ("[I]n the absence of statutory requirement, police records are confidential."); People v. Pearson, 244 P.2d 35, 35 (Cal. Di......