In re Fry
2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 84
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Ian Castaneira, elected constable for Highspire since 2010, petitioned the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas to approve appointment of John Fry as his deputy constable; the District Attorney objected after a background investigation.
- At the trial hearing Castaneira (pro se) testified he sought a deputy mainly for safety and to obtain more assignments from the magisterial district judge; Detective Wood testified Fry’s background check was clean and that Fry might improve assignment prospects.
- The trial court denied approval, applying a longstanding judicial "needs" test (from In re Hunter) requiring a constable to show inability to perform duties due to volume of business, disability, or other unusual condition, and found Castaneira had not shown such necessity.
- The trial court also held the District Attorney had standing to appear and that Castaneira waived constitutional challenges by procedural default; Castaneira appealed to this Court.
- The en banc Commonwealth Court overruled Hunter’s needs test, held the court retains discretionary review (not merely a rubber stamp), and concluded the District Attorney has standing to participate; but dismissed the appeal as moot because Fry no longer resided in the borough and thus was ineligible under § 7122.
Issues
| Issue | Castaneira's Argument | District Attorney/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DA has standing to object to deputy appointment under 44 Pa.C.S. § 7122 | DA lacks statutory right; limited to prosecutions | DA has significant interest in fitness of officers and unique ability to investigate; may protect public safety | DA has standing to participate in such petitions |
| Whether § 7122 is facially unconstitutional as violating separation of powers | Court cannot disapprove executive appointments (constable’s deputies) absent statute | Court approval is a valid exercise of judicial discretion, not usurpation | Challenge waived on appeal; Court rejects separation-of-powers claim as meritless |
| Whether § 7122 is unconstitutional as applied when MDJ refuses to assign work (so constable cannot show "need") | Needs test makes approval impossible if MDJ withholds assignments | Court may assess circumstances; needs test appropriate historically | Court overturns Hunter needs test; as-applied claim not sustained here |
| Whether a constable must show "need" for appointment though § 7122 contains no such test | Statute contains no needs requirement; Hunter misreads law | Historical common pleas practice required showing of necessity | Hunter overruled; needs test rejected as statutory imposition |
| What standard should govern court review of deputy appointments | Automatic approval if residency satisfied | Court must retain discretion to reject unsuitable appointees based on fitness/public safety | Court rejects strict needs test but affirms judicial discretion to refuse unsuitable candidates; residency remains required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hunter, 782 A.2d 610 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (historical "needs" test for approval of deputy constables)
- In re Petition of Pender, 25 A.3d 453 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (court may deny appointment of a constable found not to be a suitable person)
- In re Approval of Special Counsel, 866 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (statutory approval proceedings may be non-adversarial and third parties can lack standing)
- Ward v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (constables are independent contractors, not Commonwealth employees)
- In re Hanssens, 821 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (self-serving future-intent statements insufficient to rebut documentary evidence of residency)