The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-06-11
The Police at the RACQUET Club.

The conduct Of the police at the Racquet
Club ontThursday evening has had one good
result at least. 1t has aroused an interest In
the law relating to personal liberty Club
men want to know all about the right to
make arrests with warrant and without war
rant. The unfortunate experience of the
two young gentlemen who were taken into
custody may thus prove serviceable to 9TH
ers in suggesting what to do and what not
TO do under similar circumstances.
These two members of the club with O
friend, were quietly dining together, when a
policeman entered their room and undertook
TO arrest the negro servant who was waiting
on them. The officer said the man was
charged with having stolen a pocketbook
from the drug store on the ground floor OF
the club building. He did not pretend that
the crime had been committed in his pres
ence, and he had no warrant for the appre-
hension OF the accused person. Nevertheless
he proposed to take him to the station house
at once. The gentlemen in the room remon-
strated with the officer. They denied his
legal authority to make an arrest for such
m offence without q warrant. He says they
then locked him in, and although they dis
pute the truth OF that statement, it seems
certain that they gave him to understand
he could not leave the apartment with his
prisoner.
All this time the complainant, whose lost,
strayed, or stolen pocketbook was RESPONSE
bic for the whole trouble, stood waiting out
side the club ON the sidewalk The bafIled
policeman leaned out Of the window and in
formed him of the predicament he was in.
The complainant carried the news to Capt.
ALEXANDER S. WILLIAMS Of the Twenty
ninth Precinct, and in q few moments the
Racquet Club was invaded by roundsman
and four patrolmen, who came to the relief
OF their comrade. This force speedily es-
eorted the accused servant and two of the
gentlemen who had interfered in his behalf
to the police station, where they remained
until next morning. The servant was dis
charged by the magistrate, who was satisfied
chat mistake had been made in his case,
and the two members of the club were fined
90 each for resisting the officer.
The law relative to arrests without O war
sant ID stated as follows in the Code of Grim
inal Procedure
arrest person:
81. For crime committed or attempted In his pres,
snce;
80 When the person arrested has committed felony,
although not in his presence;
80 When felony has in fact been committed and he
has reasonable cause for believing the person be
rested to have committed it,"
The first subdivision does not apply to the
case under consideration, because the police
man was not present when the alleged crime
was committed.
The second subdivision does not apply, be-
cause, even II the charge against the servant
was true, it amounted only to petit larceny,
which is misdemeanor, and not felony.
The third subdivision does not apply, be-
cause it also relates only to feloncs.
Ii felony had been committed, and the
eniccr had good reasons for suspecting the
servant Of the Racquet Club to be the guilty
party, his authority to arrest him without a
warrant would have been indisputable. But
felony had not been committed The COM
plant which was preferred against the SER
want was for a mlsdemeanor only, and the
Police Justice did not hold him even on that
charge. Under the circumstances, and In
view OF the final disposition Of the case by
the magistrate, the attempt to arrest the ac-
cused waiter without warrant appears
clearly to have been unlawful.
II 1t was unlawful, 1t was wholly outside
and In violation of the officers duty, and we
are unable to perceive how the Police Justice
could have como to the conclusion that the
gentlemen who interposed and sought to
prevent the officer from doing an illegal It
were punishable. The case would be diff
ferent If they had obstructed an officer in
aischarging, or attempting to discharge. q
duty OF his Office An act that the law for
bids cannot be viewed as duty. Tho SER
want would have been justified in using such
force as might be necessary to prevent the
attempted arrest, and We recall no rule of
lay which makes it Illegal for others to aid
him In resisting apprehension which he may
lawfully resist himself.
or course, whoever offers such aid assumes
certain risks. II tho officer happens TO have
witnessed the crime, or II felony has been
committed, and there is reasonable cause for
suspicion against the person sought to be
arrested, those who resist tho officer because
he has no warrant will render themselves
smenable w the criminal law, Thus. II o