Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1869-07-27
The Power Of the pslice - Arrest without
Warrant. MIA

Ihe Fewer OF the peltce - Arrest without
Warrant. lrr1'E
DECISION or JCpGR YTsH1R.
The DE;iss Of tae Ps,ice-An In1ertcHt order
froa, Xejer Richards. --.-. ...
The decision OF Jadee Fisher. ia the Crimi-
nal court, Ia the case Of Williams, atlas
ton To-Day smons he n.nseS q The I police
and their fyiends, and about the various Jus.
tees ofnces. In this case Omcer McOoIGan
was called on BY James Grady 2 arrest VII.
which Grady alleged Williams was wearing
at the time, and started aftsr him. williams
resisted the otheer, lghting very hard, but was
accused was placed on trial for the rceny and
assault and resisting the OH GER, and Mr.. A. b.
Williams argued that the oficer not having
having a warrant. had no power to make the
arrest, and therefore the prisoner should be
acquitted. Judge Fisher lnstr1ct the jury
that npiess they were satisfied the accused
OF resisting an officer; that policemen
when they were without warrant attempting
arrests, were acting at their peril. II the party
accused were guilty, well and good, but IL not,
the policeman acted at his peril. The Jury
found for the defendant-a verdict Of not
guilty. The police have for the past elk months
ast. Heider, by Judge Olin, in the Cs1rt in
General Term. In November last, their guide
TIE facts in that case were as follows--De.
iendant told an ofhcer Of police that he believed
VI
and wanted him searched. The next day de-
tendsnt and Officer Kelley arrested plaiatiff,
and he Was confined for some time. but after.
wards dis missed and alleged that h. suffered
much from his imprisor ment, and that the
arrest was WITHOUT warrant. For this false
arrrst and Imprisonment suit WAS brought
Sgilnst Heider, and the plaintiff obtained a
verGic', when the case was taken to the Court
IN General Term on exceptions. ana the de cl-
SIN of the conrr below was affirmed bv q full
tench. In the course OF the opinion OF Judge
DIN in that ease be says:
As The question has frequently aIi sen in this
court as 10 the authority OF private persons
ana police Ulcers TO arrest without warrant,
1t may be useful to state what we deem the
law upon the SUBJECT.
lst. As to the light OF private persons to ar.
rest. has long been the settled Ia " that all
persons Whatever who are present when fell
DRY Is committed or dangerous wound Is
given not only may apprehend the offender
but that it is their duty 20 do so. | Arch Or.
II. u; Hawk +. T., l51; East. p. O., 3i7;
Hcllsy VS. Mix. so
So any person whatever, If an afray be made
10 me breach OF peace. may, without warrant,
restrain any OF the Offenders IN order ID pre-.
serve the peace; hut even il would seem that
this Restraint cannot be continued after the
peace has been restored. See Phillips vs.
Trull, II: John. $50.
NeIthtr q private person nor an officer can
arrest IeIson charged with a crime OF less
degree than felony without a warrant # not
committed in their presenc, An Off Ger has no
night 10 arrest person without warrant guilty
OF a nisdemeanor after the otfense has been
oommired. See Proper We. Adler, 3 PARK: ,
Eawkips, p. c., 121; e. and F., SIS.
Both private persons and officers may arrest
without warrant persons guilty OF fslonles.
Upon this subject. Chief Justice Savage in The
Sd Wild, S3. states the case as follows MY
understanding CT the law is. that If a felony
has IN fact been committed by the pers on ar.
rested, the arrest may be justified by any one
without warrant, whether there is time 10 OBJ
tain one or not. II an innocent person is ar.
rested upon suspicion by private individual,
such Individual is excused, If a felony in fact
was committed and there was reasonable
ground 10 suspect the party arrested; but If no
vate individual arrest without warrant, such
arrest is iilfGaia though an officer would be
justified If he had acted upon information
which he had reason 10 rely on
Justice Drury, in R0han VS.. Savioa, Cusn.
ing. -, says the public safety and the due ID.
pTebeDsion OF criminals. charged with heinons
litiohionsl offences, imperiously quire that
such arrests should be made with out warrant
by olhcers OF the law. As to the RICH. apper.
tanning 10 private individuals 10 arrest with.
out " arrant. 1t is much more restricted
authority, and is confined to cases OF the actual
quit OF the party arrested, and the arrest can
only be justified by proving such guilt; but as
10 consiables and other peace officers acting
oncnlly, the law clothes them with greater
authority, and they are held TO be justified il
they act IN making The arrest on probable and
reasonable grounds for believing the party to
De Eullfy OF felony. - A peace officer
may, therefore. Justify an arrest on a rea soma
bic charge OF feionoDy without a warrant al.
though ii should afterwards appear that no
Ebony had been committed, but a private indi.
vldual canpo'. See Samuel vs.. Payne Doug.
H. $50, 2 Hale p. G. s., ~, 80. We think the
true rule OF law Is laid down in the case of
Roman VS.. Savior, and the ruling OF the
justice at the Circuit mnst he sustained"
Inc decision Of Judge Fisher would seam TO
De at verIanca with The decision of Judre
Dim: and Major Richards to-day determined
that his officers :houId be fully appriZ.d OF
ID responsibilities, and this afternoon issued
an order on the subject.
The order Of Major Richards Just issued is
as follows:
department # metropolitan Police, Ofice OF
MAJOR and superintendent, July 2.th, 1-S9-
GeI eral Order, No. 2l9.-Lieutenant Owing
10 tbr conflict existing between the opinion of
me court III JdHc, as delivered Nov. I2, 1855
and ne recent instructions Of the Judge of the
Criminal Court, in the trial o. James Burnett
Tor larceny ard resisting police Off Ger in the
dlscDafge OF his duties. you Will instruct the
members OF your command, until further
orders, to make no more arrests for any cause
Wnatever, without warrant. unless they
snali themselves see the offence for which thew
make an arrest
(Signed.) A. O. RICHARDS,
Malor and SuDerintendapt