holding that the State Ethics Commission lacked jurisdiction to pursue an investigation of a county’s chief adult probation officer, who “is subject to the supervision and discipline of our ... Supreme Court”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the State Ethics Commission lacked jurisdiction to pursue an investigation of a county’s chief adult probation officer, who “is subject to the supervision and discipline of our ... Supreme Court”
- "[B]ecause our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the sole power and responsibility to supervise the practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, the General Assembly is precluded from exercising powers which limit the powers entrusted to the judiciary."
- "[Bjecause our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the sole power and responsibility to supervise the practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, the General Assembly is precluded from exercising powers which limit the powers entrusted to the judiciary.”
- A probation officer is a judicial employee, thus, under the separation of powers doctrine, is not subject to the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act. 10
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLINS, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
. I concur with the result reached by my learned colleague. However, I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the petitioner is a judicial officer. Article V, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that:
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law and justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system.
Therefore, while the petitioner is a public employee, and an employee of the judicial branch of government, he is not a judicial officer, as he has no judicial powers. Those who may be considered judicial officers are clearly delineated above. While petitioner is certainly an officer of the court, pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c), he is not a judicial officer.
Further, I would grant fees to petitioner against respondent, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7538.