Seeton v. Adams, 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 240

Seeton, a Humane Society Police Officer in Berks County, enforces the Animal Cruelty Law and may initiate criminal proceedings.
In December 2009, Seeton filed two criminal citations against Pike Township Sportsmen’s Association for a live pigeon shoot, alleging cruel treatment of pigeons under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5511(c).
The District Attorney advised Seeton to withdraw the citations, later withdrawing them himself, stating live pigeon shoots do not violate § 5511(c).
Seeton previously sought equity relief in 2001 regarding injured birds from pigeon shoots, resulting in a narrow injunction about humane treatment of injured birds but not shutdown of pigeon shoots.
Seeton then filed a mandamus action in July 2010 to compel prosecution; the District Attorney and trial court argued mandamus cannot compel review of prosecutorial discretion and may not authorize undoing a DA’s decision.
The majority affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that mandamus cannot be used to undo the DA’s withdrawal of charges; the DA’s prosecutorial discretion is ordinarily beyond judicial review; the case discusses misapplication of law as a potential basis for mandamus, but such review is limited and not applicable here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can mandamus compel prosecution by a district attorney?	Seeton argues mandamus may review misapplication of law to force enforcement.	Adams contends prosecutorial discretion is immune from mandamus.	No; mandamus cannot compel prosecution or reverse discretionary decisions.
Is a district attorney’s legal misinterpretation reviewable via mandamus?	Seeton asserts misinterpretation of the Animal Cruelty Law justifies mandamus.	DA's legal interpretation is within prosecutorial discretion and not subject to mandamus review.	Review may occur when there is a mistaken view of the law that causes non-action, but here the DA withdrew based on a believed legal constraint; the court declined mandamus relief.
Does Seeton have standing to seek mandamus against the district attorney?	Seeton, as a police officer enforcing the statute, has a direct right to relief.	The trial court held she lacked standing to challenge prosecutorial discretion.	Court did not reach standing because mandamus relief was denied on the merits.
Is a district attorney’s decision not to prosecute reviewable when based on a legal error?	If the decision rests on an error of law, mandamus may compel correction.	Prosecutorial decisions are generally final and non-reviewable.	The court found the DA’s decision cannot be reviewed to compel reversal; misapplication of law is not sufficient to sustain mandamus here.

Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 539 Pa. 428, 652 A.2d 1294 (1995) (1995) (DA has final authority to decide whether to prosecute; police cannot bind DA)
Tanenbaum v. D’Ascenzo, 356 Pa. 260, 51 A.2d 757 (1947) (1947) (refusal to exercise discretion may be addressed in mandamus if based on mistaken law)
Maxwell v. Board of School Directors of Farrell, 381 Pa. 561, 112 A.2d 192 (1955) (1955) (discretion prevails; mandamus cannot compel to exercise discretion in a particular way)
Pennsylvania Dental Ass’n v. Insurance Dept., 512 Pa. 217, 516 A.2d 647 (1986) (1986) (mandamus to compel action when agency refused to act; discretion limits described)
Commonwealth v. Benz, 523 Pa. 203, 565 A.2d 764 (1989) (1989) (reviewable when DA’s decision not to prosecute rests on a legal determination, not policy)
DiPasquale v. Commonwealth, 431 Pa. 536, 246 A.2d 430 (1968) (1968) (DA’s broad power to prosecute is subject to judicial supervision to protect rights and ensure proper administration)
Weaver v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (1997) (mandamus may compel proper procedures or proper law applied by agencies)
Mohler v. Labor Day Committee, Inc., 443 Pa. Super. 651, 663 A.2d 162 (1995) (1995) (injury to birds may be actionable under law; context cited for live pigeon shoots)