The herald., 1898-09-26
Police Commission and the Law


proper expressien q their views.1
Police Commission and the Law
10 the Editor Of the Los Angeles Herald:
The meeting Of the police commission last
Friday for tho obvious purpose Of attempt-
ing a Justification Of the acts Of police Of
ficers based upon rules Of the police de-
partment, in arvesting and imprisonins q
suspected persons without warrant, with
out giving them an opportunity to give
bail and without a speedy hearing before
q magistrate. presents remarkable spec
tacle, especially In view Of the publicity
given by the press to the provisions of
the cons titutton and Of the laws. and espe-
cially in view Of the fact that one Of the
commissioners ID himself lawyer.
The great charter, wrung from King
John by the nberty-foving people Of Eng
lanr In the year 1915, contained thirty
eight chapters guaranteeing the liberties
Of the English people. In chapter twenty
nine It was provided: mo freeman shall
be disseised OF his freehold, imprfsoned and
condemned but by Judgment Of his peers
or by the law OF the land"
The liberty. Of the subject, which has
thus been guaranteed for hundreds OF
years, Is expressed in tho constitution OF
the United States (Art. 14), in the follow
ing words: mo state shall make or en-
force any law which shall ebridge the
privileges or 1mmunites Of the citizens
Of the United States, nor shall any state
deprive any person Of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process Of law. nor deny
to any person within It's jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws
The constitution Of California (Art 1
SEQ. 13) provides as follows: mo person
shall be . deprived Of life, liberty
or property without due process Of law"
In the penal code Of California (Bec. s49l
| It Is provided as follows: when an arrest
Is made without a warrant by peace Of
ficer or private person. the person arrest.
ed must, without unnecessary delay. be
taken before the nearest or most accessible
magistrate in the county in which the ar
rest il made, and an informa tion, stating
the charge against the person must bt
laid before such magistrate"
And in section 23e Of the penal code It Is
enacted: False imprisonment 10 the un-
lawful violation Of the personal liberty oi
another."
Section 27 provides: False imprison.
ment Is punishable by fine not exceeding
$4,000, or by imprisonment In the county
jail not more than one year. or BOTH"
The police commission cannot shield
themselves behind their own rules. II
those rules provide for or permit the i'm
prisonment Of a suspected person for 6
day, for an hour, or for = minute. beyond
what Is necessary for proceeding to tht
nearest magistrate for the arraignment ot
the prisoner, and for his bail to be fixed
those rules violate the law Of the land iE
the same way and to the same extent al
If the act had been permitted by a police.
man in the absence of such rules.
In the proceedings Of the police COM
mission the press report contains the fol.
lowing:
commissioner Gbbon at once went t
the defense of the department. He con.
tended that the words In the penal code
without unnecessary delay left 1t dis.
cretionary with tho detectives as to wher
they should make charges against q pris.
oner. Sometimes 1t might be three days
sometimes six days. before prisoner could
be properly cherged. and Mr.. Gibbon helt
| that the detectives had q right to hold g
prisoner without having sworn to q com-
plaint for the time necessary, in their
opinion, to gather sufficient evidence
Is 1t possible at Commissioner Gibbor
desires the pu!,.e of this city to under.
stand from those remarks that not only
do the rules of the police commission au-
thorize an arrest to be made and the sus-
pected person to be imprisoned without bali
and without a trial, but that he and the
other commissioners justify such acts?
In that case, In a criminal prosecution
or civil suit against the police commission
ers and the chief of police for false i'm
prisonment, how can they Justify theil
acts before the law?
In the case of All Fone We Sternes, 7s
CAL, 30, an action for false Imprisonment
the supreme court of California says
THE allegation that the plaintiff was
confined and restrained of his liberty by
the defendant Is an allegation Of physical
and bodily restraint. which would serve as
foundation for the old action of trespass
vi ct armis. In such an action 1t is not
| necessary to aver-as would be necessary
In an action for malicious prosecution
that the Imprisonment was malicious o,
without probable cause. 1t is not even
necessary to allege that the imprisonment
is unlawful (although 1t is alleged here)
II matter Of Justification exists 1t must be
pleaded by the defendant whoever as.
saults or impr1sons another Except In
some cases under particular statutes) must
Justify himself by showing specially to the
court that the act was lawful The
| allegation of Imprisonment, coupled with
the averment of damage above quoted
constitutes a cause Of action for false i'm.
| prisonment"
c. HAMILTON WHITE.
| Los Angeles, CAL, Sept. "a, 1893.
| To the Editor Of the Los Angeles Herald
Since my party (Republican) .s conductive