The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-04-03
n WAS POLICE OPPRESSION.
50 SAYS JUsfICE GAYNOR TF THE
ALLEGATIONS ARE PROVED.

or Censervers Of Private Msrais.
Police Captain Patrick Summers and
Patrolmen Thomas Lynch. James Gillen
and John Green Of the Hamilton avenue
station In Brooklyn will have to stand q
judicial examination for alleged oppres-
sion In the case of Michael McPadden, .
tobacconist. Of 10 Hamilton avenue. They
were charged with having "wilfully and ma
hciously oppressed McPadden by invading
his premises and occupying the same against
his will and against his protests from and
including March IL until and including
March "a Tho police pretext for this
acti on was based on q suspicion that gam
bling was being carried on In q room over
the cigar store. occupied by the Waterfront
Social Club.
While the surveillance was nj Ill In progress
McPadden. through his lawyer, Eugene
Conran, applied to City Magistrate Frank
E. OReilly for q warrant for the arrest Of
Capt. Summers and the three patrolmen,
but the application was refused. A SINH
lar application was then made to Supreme
Court Justice William j. Gsynor, who
granted II and issued the warrant. The
four police defendants were arraigned be-
fore Justice Gaynor on March 20, Assistant
Corporation Counsel Patrick E. Callahan
appearing In their behalf. They were
paroled for examination until March 30,
when Mr.. Callahan moved for q dismissal
OF the complaint on the ground that the
officers were acting within the legal lines Of
their prescribed duties. Justice Gaynor
reserved his decision and adjourned the
hearing until next Monday.
10 L.. Ill
court at Mineola, L. l., during the week,
notified the counsel In the case yesterday
that he had decided to deny the motion
for dismissal and that the examination must
proceed on Monday.
In his decision Justice Gaynor says:
The charge was the crime Of oppression.
under section $50 OF the Penal Code. The
defendants after being arraisned before
the Magistrate moved TO dismiss the case
on the ground that the facts charged In the
deposition did not show a criminal offence.
Il The motion to dismiss must be denied.
This captain Of police, and the three patrol:
With the ssfoS, erime q ~. ossI oppre sase'
These, defendants now. claim that the acts
mich ss Shn s a n the out Se
motion it 6as to be taken As true that they
what is hsreajtsr said viii h1 Be on that theory. '
Section sss Of the Penal Code. which de-
finss the said crime. IL as foIlows; public
pre t q color o. os,eiai authority. n
viii: or t,I seises or ievies upon snother's
property; or t3J Dispossesses another OF any
lands or tenements: or Nl Does any other
pr.sslon and Is guilty Of . misdemeanor,
The deposition n states that the complsi11ssnt
this police captain, accompanied by these
three patrolmen, came Into his store on
al feS: 'asy snd Sea
HEN I'm being there AZ he time from
and protest OF the complainant: that they
that their prese Gse n A he %
store gave film and his store bad name, |
and I.d,S dster IRE, people from coming Il In, and
his good name and business '''1 ~
These acis fully, make out the crime of
Il Is dlficuIt to conceive how any one 10 |
lhs right 70 do what these defendants are
police in any community Of nIIshtened |
American citizens, II does not seem TO be |
Ms bs M ali The 81 s .ory
not only ordinary. policemen but even police |
captains are appointed e the police force In
fishts Of indiSidaais, and he Limitations on
Of the PoSs e make
lhsory. namely. that in the past those in
only sanctioned such s acts SG Of police iswless.
ness but often required them to be COM
until they grew TO be dsc 1nia iswf
notion that the police are the custodians or
oonservers Of the private morals Of the com.
uplifting morals instead OF debaslns them.
The moral growth q q community depends
home life. and not on the police
above the plaintiffs store is occupied by a
hey play cards for money or do some Kind
d stay In the compIsinsnt's store II they
aSo .safcS The "f prsmses. L wss their
mad no warrant. then their presence was un-
Dr. IN the clubrooms
The learned counsel for the defendants
81 81 the ss
support. to MAKE il. the duty Of tho police
'ully observe and inspect all places Of, public
all places OF business having
Excise or otner licenses 70 carry on any Dust- l
hess, all houses OF Ill fame or prostitution
,r reside; ali lottery ofices. policy shops
ri p: sfs .o Sfe or =: e
houses. cockpits. ratpits and public common
lance houses, and to- reprees and restrain
III una wful and disorderly conduct therein"
But this provision 10 not open TO the con-
tructton commended for, a. the police have
,een heretofore fully informed
The police may enter and inspect licensed
places TO a reasonable extent, but they have
~ such right In respect OF prvate houses
md places. They cannot enter the latter
i viii or on suspicion. or on what they may
PROVISION only mean. that they mus! observe
meant more than this II would be void. il Is
constitutional principle of government
lere and In England, and OF free government
that ones house may not BE- entered
" the police or BY government except under
warrant. The exceptions In the case OF
pursuing fleeing felons, or persons escaping
rom arrest, and the like. do not need to BE- |
tsted here. The trouble with this Charter
PROVISION H. that II Il. crude and bungling.
mineles lawful and unlawful places to-
'ether In one common class and requires the
,olice 70 inspect them aud preserye order in
hem. whereas there u no such thing ~ the
4 the latter places. as In the former. for they
annot be sanctioned or suffered to exist At !
H. While its true Interpretation 10 plain
noueh, Il Is nevertheless open 70 a false |
which enables the police to claim |
he right ~ visitation over houses Of I'll fame !
nd gambling houses. FOR instance. This
1opld enable the police TO take SUCH places