The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-10
THE LAW STANDS.

THE prediction of The Call that Justice of the
Peace Groezinger sitting in Judge 1readweH
department of the Police Court, would dismiss
the remaining cases against bookmakers and others
for violations of order ia was promptly verified The
ridiculous assumption by this Justice OF the Peace
first that there were irregularities in the passage OF
the order and, second that these irregularities con-
stituted fatal breach OF the State constitution de-
serve no further comment.
But the decision of Judge Murasky in the injunction
suit against the Police Department is of a different
complexion. 1t seems that the police claimed the
right forcby enter the Enclosure of the 1nglesde
racetrack simply to ascertain whether the law was
being violated or not This position is clearly indie
feasible. The Pacific Coast Jockey Club has the same
right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property that
any citizen has to his house his store. If the po-
lice know that crime is actually being perpetrated
within the nclosure if complaint has been filed
and warrant issued against a defendant who is in
SIDE if necessary they break in for the purpose
OF making an arrest. But no policeman has official
right to force his way into any premises merely to
crafty his curiosity.
This is the substance OF Judge Muraskys decision,
in which individual rights and the interests of the pub
lie are carefully guarded He declares the law in a
perfectly clear and satisfactory manner The evi-
dence before him showed that the Pacific Coast
Jockey Club was obeying the order and making no
threats to violate evade its provisions The de-
Tense that the municipality through its police
had legal authority gratutousy to attend the races
for the sole purpose OF observation. This defense
Judge Murasky holds to be untenabe and against
the unfounded claim of the police, practically
serted he exercised the functions of chancellor by
the issue of permanent injunction.
But, while he enforces the rights of ownership on
the hand he is equally careful to uphold the order
the other. His determinations show the precision
OF his reasoning and the integrity of his attitude
The defendants peace officers and cannot be
restrained from performing their duties; they have
right to the premises of the plaintiff without its
consent in the performance OF their duties and in the
manner provided by law but not otherwise"
In other words police officers can force their way
anywhere to serve warrant, regularly issued, to
arrest man, at the moment and within their obser
walton or positive knowledge engaged in the commits
sion of offense, whether misdemeanor or felony
Sections $50 subdivision ~ 844 and $40 Of the Penal
Code among other constitutional and statutory pro-
visions, this point But officer is searching
for facts upon which criminal prosecution can be
founded he has greater rights than private citi
zen. In the case OF the Ingeside track there was
pardonabe excess Of zeal on the part of the police
But there is nothing prevent them from discovering
breaches of the law there in the usual and ordinary
way They must pay their admission fee and then
they act upon the facts within their observation
Judge Murasky, although the technicalities
argued before him that convinced the Justice of
the Peace was careful to avoid any assertion of the
invalidty of order IA 1t unnecessary to his de
cision to make any formal ruling on that question.
But his entire proceedings in the case must have
been based the presumption that had been legally
passed. because the order had been void the plain
tiff, without testimony clearly entitled to the
lief sought
1t does not appear that any re-enactment of the
order is necessary 1t stands protection to the
community, which be effectively enforced through
the loyal performance of official duty.