Petty Misdemeanor Complaint Need Not be Personally Served Upon Defendant; Best Practice Should Identify Name of Signing Complainant And Source of Information

State v. Wood, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2014.  A judge convicted Ms. Wood of various petty traffic violations.  An officer had cited her or speeding and for following another vehicle too closely.  Right after getting her ticket Ms. Wood requested a written complaint.  The state complied.  The state filed the complaint and both mailed and faxed copies of it to Ms. Wood’s office.  Ms. Wood moved to dismiss the complaint.  She made three arguments:  the complaint was not properly served upon her; the complaint was not supported by probable cause because it did not identify the signing complainant and did not explain just how the signing complainant was aware of the facts of the case; and the trial court should have granted her request for a subpoena to this signing complainant.  The trial court denied the motion, rejecting all three arguments.

As does the court of appeals. 

Service:  The rules of criminal procedure do not include a service requirement for either petty misdemeanors or misdemeanor cases.  Moreover, the rule on “service” – Rule 33.02 – applies only to written motions, written notices and “other similar papers,” and not complaints.

Probable Cause:  Ms. Wood said that because the person who signed the complaint had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case and did not disclose her sources the complaint lacked probable cause.  In this instance, the person who signed the complaint was a paralegal within the prosecutor’s office.  The state said, “We do this all the time, so what’s the big deal?”

There’s a United States Supreme Court case, Giordenello v. U.S., 357 U.S. 480 (1958) that threw out an arrest warrant because the warrant did not contain an affirmative allegation that the writer spoke with personal knowledge, did not recite any sources for the writer’s assertions, and did not state any other sufficient basis upon which a finding of probable cause could be made.  So, in the right case letting paralegals sign criminal complaints could be a big deal.  Not so for Ms. Wood.  This is because the complaint showed the source of the paralegal’s assertions – the cop.  Moreover, Ms. Wood could not show any prejudice.  Although Ms. Wood does not prevail on this argument, the court does chastise the practice of letting paralegals run wild.  “Adding a sentence to the complaint stating who the signing complainant is and how she received the stated information is a simple and preferred approach to establishing probable cause.”

Subpoena:  Because the paralegal had no personal knowledge then any testimony from her would not have been either relevant or admissible.  So, there was no abuse of discretion in denying Ms. Wood’s request for a subpoena.