relief as to criminal matters. There are two general views as to the propriety of declaratory relief with respect to criminal matters. W.E. Shipley, Validity, Construction, and Application of Criminal Statutes or Ordinances as Proper for Declaratory Judgment, 10 A.L.R.3d 727, 1966 WL 15425 (2004). The first view is the traditional one, that declarative relief is inappropriate as to criminal matters. Id. See also Schwartz v. O’Connell, 124 N.Y.S.2d 397 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1953) (noting that a court will not grant declaratory judgment where its effect will be to restrain criminal prosecution, or to interfere with the enforcement of criminal law, particularly when facts are in dispute or open to different interpretations); Witschner v. City of Atchison, 154 Kan. 212, 117 P.2d 570 (1941) (<HOLDING>). The second view many jurisdictions have taken
holding that declaratory judgments should not be used as a restraint against criminal action recognizing that the declaratory judgment act should not be used as a tool for forum shopping recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act holding property owner not entitled to award of attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because his declaratory judgment counterclaim did not present any issues beyond the homeowners associations cause of action holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction