The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-10-08
Sc; 1. 1. Cent. L. j., 3s1; l. Am. & Eng.
Ency Of L.. 1872: L D. 675

| Sc; I. I. Cent. L. j., 331; /. Am. & Eng.
| Ency. Of L.. 1872; 1. D. 675-
| I'm considering the question Of an Of
| ficer making an arrest without war
| rant for a misdemeanor committed at
past time, the supreme court of Mich
| igan said: Any law which would place
| the keeping and safe conduct Of anoth-
| er in the hands of even consevator of
| the peace, unless for some breach of
| the peace committed in his presence, or
| upon suspicion of felony, would be
most oppressive and unjust, and de-
stroy all the rights which our constitu-
| ton guarantees. These are rights
which existed long before our constitu-
| ton and we have taken just pride in
| their maintenance, making them part
of the fundamental law of the land
Pinkerton VS.. Verberg, Supra. In the
same case it was said: IF persons can
be restraintd of their liberty and as
saulted and imprisoned under such cir
cumstances without complaint or war
rant. then there is no limit to the pow
er of police officer
Our constitution not only provides
that the right of the people be secure
against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inviolate, but it also
declares in the same section that no
warrants shall issue but on proba bic
cause supported by oath or affirmation.
In interpreting that provision this
court has held that it is only declara-
tory of the fundamental rights of the
citizen, and is intended TO protect him
IN his liberty and property against the
arbitrary action of those in authority,
and that a warrant based on a COM
plant verified only on information and
belief is insufficient, and an arrest up
on such a warrant is illegal 1t was
also said that If no warrant issue but
upon probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation, the support must be
more than hearsay or belief State VS..
Gleason, 81 Kan, 245.
III an arrest can not be made or
justified on warrant resting only on
hearsay or belief, how can an arrest
for petty offenSe without a warrant
upon the mere suspicion of an officer,
not resting even on hearsay or belief,
be Justified? He may be irresponsible,
have heard only an idle rumor, and
may be actuated by malice or some
other unworthy motive, and to give an
officer unlimited authority to arrest
without a warrant in all cases upon
mere suspicion is unreasonable and
clear infringement of the constitutional
rights Of the people
1t is in effect a revival of the odious
general warrants, which placed the lib
erty OF every man in the hands of every
petty officer, and which long ago re-
ceived judicial condemnation. To pre-
vent their use and the exercise of such
arbitrary power at the discretion of an
officer, 1t has not been deemed unwise |
TO repeat in the state constitutions, as
Well as in the constitution of the Unit |
ed States, the principles already settled !
IN the common law upon this vital |
point in civil liberty, Cooley's Const.
Linn, S64 and notes.
We readily conclude that the statute !
IN question which undertakes to au- |
thorize an officer to make an arrest in |
cases of misdemeanor without a war /
rant, except upon view of the offense, is |
and for that reason |
the arrest Of the petitioner must be |
held to be Illegal"
All the justices concurring.
The supreme court also rendered a |
decision yesterday holding that the or /
oers from the state board of railroad |
are not final and cannot |
be especially enforced in the courts. |
The case was filed in the supreme court
IN 1889 upon an application for a writ !
or mandamus by the attorney general /
directed TO the Missouri Pacific Rail- !
road company, ordering them to restore
passenger train in accordance with
the order of the state board, on the LIE
Roy and Caney Valley Air Line.
The court cieS that the question in
volved in this case was answered in
the case of the State eX rel, vs. Rail-
road reported in the Forty-ninth Kan
Sas, at page 497, and finds in the opin-
ION that the boards orders are not final
in such matters