Putnam patriot., 1924-11-28

and prevent them from telephon&03 until tho warrant had been scYvs1 ok the hotel. and that the purross 0& their so doing was to prevent word e the search of the car and of the sxios tenee of the warrant reaching Smith before the officers could serve tA The probability amounts to a pyaceip cal certainty that, had the party no1 been so detained. they would have gotten word of what had happened to Smith, and it is likely that he would have at once proceeded to dispose u1 any liquor he had on hand, so that when the officers arrived, they would have found nothing. The plaintiff was not detained for a longer per iod than was reasonable Co accom- plish the purpose of the officers and bring about her release after that was effected.
 Right Jeaieusly Guarded
 "As l view 1t the question in the case comes down to this Have police officers the right to exercise a tem- porary restrafn over the freedom of action of one who, if permitted to go free, would in all probability take some step which would interfere with the service of process they have tn hand. Like counsel. l have been uns able to ind any direct authority up- on this question and am driven back | oreason and analogy. The practical value of the orderly administration of justice which such power would have makes an affirmative answer tho readler upon the tongue. But be- cause the right of personal liberty ot action is one of the inalienahle righto of man. set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed tR the Constitution of the United Stateo and the several states courts have sl. ways been jealous of any infringe ment of 1t and vigilant to construs and apply these guarantees SO thAt their efficiency may be not frittcrsd away by judicial decision"
 Judge Maltbie then goes into an exposition of the law to show that the right of personal liberty and fres- dom of action has some qualifications when restraint of the individual Will serve the best interests of the coAr munity. He cites the rights of . private citizen to make arrests 10 certain eases; the right of roping o0 n certain area by the police when a fire Is in progress and other similar acts that have always been consider ed not to infringe the constitutional right Co freedom of lecomotion. In conclusion he says:
 Officers Were Justified
 'sUpon principle and the authority of analogy, think the officers were iuHtiiied in exercising a reasonable restraint over the person of the piain- tiff, to prevent her giving warning to her husband of the liklihood of ser. vice and so frustrate the purposes of the process in the hands of the ofii- cers. i.
 II do not see how could award any large damage to the plaintiff iu aay ease. Doubtless the events uf that afternoon did cause her serious ner- vous upset but it is hard Co see how her condition by detention by the po- ice could hardly produce any great disorder of mind or body. On the other hand the circumstances connected with the search of the hotel were well calculated to cause her concern and worry To say what portion of her dis tfess is to be attributed to the former event and what the latter would bs difficult and to hold that any large proportion of that distress is to bs assigned to the former ts more difn- cult still. l am not obliged to era~ bark upon said injury. however. for | hold that the defendants were jus tliied in law for their acts. There fore judgment for the defendants. |"