The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-24
ENJOTNING THE POLICE.
Courts Inclined TO Limit Rule n Equity
VIII Not Interfere.

eOuftb hHClutu 70 hs1Wst nulS hub Equity
VIII Not Interfere.
The suggestion was recently made In The
Sun. In noticing the decision OF the Appellate
Division, First Department. in the case OF
Stevens rs. McAdoo. that possibly equity
will enjoin the acts of police officers In spite
OF the decision Of the Court Of Appeals In the
case OF Delaney vs.. Flood, reported in 1873
n. Y. 1923. In the Stevens case. 1t will be
remembered. there was considerable diff
ference OF opinion among the Justices. but
Presiding Justice O'Brien was the only dis
senter who limited the scope Of the Delaney
decision.
The Appellate Division, First Department,
In q group OF decisions handed down at the
same time with the Stevens decision, shows a
further inclination to depart from the ruling
OF the Delaney case whenever the facts
may Justify such departure and to epgraft
an exception to the general rule that equity
will not enjoin the enforcement OF the crimi-
nal law. The cases referred to are those OF
McGorie, Cleary and Burns against McAdoo.
The Burns case will serve to Illustrate the
tendency referred to. There Justices Laugh
lin and Patterson unite with Presiding Justice
O'Brien In supporting the exception. Justices
1ngraham and Clarke still contend that the
Court OF Appeals laid down a general propo-
sition when it decided the Delaney case. Tho.
prevailing justices Of the Appellate Division
hold In the Burns case that where no reason
able ground Is shown to justify even a sus-
picion that a person Is conducting an unlaw-
full business and there is no adequate remedy
at law for the ruination OF such business by
police interference. a court OF equity has
and should exercise Jurisdiction to enjoin
an Unlawful respass by the police.
Burns ran a physical culture school In this
city. The an1davits in support Of the in
Junction show that 1t was unau estionably
a legitimate business. The only attempted
Qualification by the police for stationing
officers in the hallway of the premises and
interfering with customers was the indica-
ton on some old police records that the prem
lses had been used some time before as a pool
room. There was not the slightest sugges-
ton OF improper or illegal conduct by Burns,
his employees or customers. Justice Laugh
lin notes the distinction made by Presiding
Justice OBrien in the Stevens case, that the
business was not one requiring a license or
open to question. The court says:
Unless a court of equity has and exercises juns.
diction TO enjoin an unlawful trespass Of this ma
ture by the police. It Is within their power to levy
tribute upon every lawful business, and even upon
citizens at their private homes; and II demands for
tribute are not acceded to 1t is within their power
to ruin any lawful business and to destroy the
good character and reputation OF any citizen or
resident OF the city and his family.
II the courts are poweress TO afford adequate
redress Tor such acts OF oppression and violation
| of Individual rights guarnnterd hy tbe op,,t,
ton, citizens and Others entitled bv ,re,tv % ,h.
rights of citizens will he driven % ,,r. On. L.
into their own hands. and ~ un,ble n d.,.nd ,h.,,
possessions against unlawful tresnnsse. hy te
police. they may resort TO the use OF firearms and
other means. 1t Is, therefore. in my on,nIon rnon
grounds OF public policy and in the ,ntcrc,, -, i,r
and order, as well as for the nro,ec,,on =, s,or.d
individual rights guaranteed nv the con,,,tu,,an
for which there Is no other ndeou,,. rsr,.d, -
v,.,b,e that in . proner caso an ,nt,r IT, 80.
issue to en,o,n a malicious n, un,.Trn ,-es,...h n
police onncers which they threaten , continue.
or course the courts may not and will not inter
tere 70 prevent arrests or the execution and en-
iorcement % une criminal Jaw; ana so long as the
ponoe u'n1nu.S A,ep Nnn 'ner proper spheres
"nu ~ u" wa v"'' v, !" wiz no. DC
o,s., where the notice oonccr, ~. ,o,in- ,,,hss.
.u,borty and ARE either ,gnor.nuv nj an, -.
r,,,,,ons,v COMMITTING mr. tbre,,sr,nr 90 nM ".
,u.g., acts against the rights ~ a r,,,,s, a. VT.
renewable damage Tor which ,her. 4. No o,has
.d.nu,t. r.m.dv that an ,nirno,,o, ..a",s Wv.
hs issued when hox.ver m. cow. ~.
ns.,.d % nv , law shdins c,,,,.n Nv ar ap,
a. IN. ,,ohts n, a c,,Iycn oonduc,,ne . -, wv,
~. ,rniob q, ,ny,d.d nv IN, no,,o.
IN r.r,,n,ns ,pdeon,t.,v and ,ha,r -. -. p.,,ts
,h,r,tor s, IN mi, cs,c an ,niur,,,o,
-. ,..u.d ,nd no.. Z, l,,,,s danna. ~ '.as eoleIs
dent VIII rcnoer " dln'cuit Tor the police ofncers to