Putnam patriot., 1924-11-28
Putnam Police Officers Were
 Justified in Holding Woman
LEA SMITH FAILS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR OFTEN. TON AT POLICE STATION WHILE HUSBANDS
 HOTEL WAS RAIDED
HOTEL WAS RAIDED
Occupants of Auto Had Not Been Detained They Would Flaw Tipped Of City Hotel Proprietor Police Were Coming

Tn a memorandum of decision filed in the superior court oy Judge Will liam Maltbie. the Putnam police are justified in their actions in holding Mrs. Lea Smith at the Putnam police station for an hour during which time her husbands hotel was being raided and liquor found. The court says that it was very evident that if the woman and her party had been allowed to do as they pleased they would have warned the plaintiffs husband. Sam uel Smith, proprietor of t.;9 City hotel, and he would have had time to dispose of any liquors he had on hand before the officers arrived.
 As result of the raid Smith was arrested and convicted. Mrs. Smith brought her civil action for false im- prisenment against Captain William Jarvis, Sergeant George l1ard and officers John Ryan and Alfefie Spon- cey of the Putnam police force al leging false imprisonment and claim ing S2 900 damages. The case was tried in Putnam at the September term of court. IL is understood that had she been successful in her action suits by others members of the party might have followed sa that the de eision is douhiy pleasing to the off cerz.
 The facts in the case are clearly outlined in the courts decision as follows:
 Memorandum of Decision
 "The defendants are police officers of the city of Putnam. One of them had search warrant directing him to search the automobile of the plain tif's husband. and also the hotel which he was operating. to ascertain if any intoxicating liquors were be- ing transported or kept for sale. Liard and another officer met the automobile short distance outside the city, driven by Smiths daugh- ter, and having as passengers the plaintiff and two or three other per sons. They proceeded to search it but found no liuuors,4 They then told the daughter that she was under arrest for a violation of the motor vehicle laws, and directed that she follow them in her car to the police station. This she did. taking with her the entire party. Al the police station they were detained for up- wards of an hour; no physical re straint or indiRnity was offered them : they were permitted to stay outside the station house or go in, as they pleased, and as a matter of fact spent most of the time outside. in or near their car; but they understood, as the officers In charge intended they should, that they were under com pulsion not Co go away In fact one member of the party started to go away and was recalled at the diree- ton of the officer then in charge al the station house; and they several times asked permission to telephone. but this was refused. Upon leaving them at the police station, Lizard and other officers proceeded with reason. able promptness to serve the war rant at the hotel. After about an hour. the service having been com pleted. the plaintiff and others in the party were permitted to go, the daughter being directed Co report later for the disposition of motor vehicle violation charge entered against her.
 Woaid Have Given Tip
 "At the time of the search of the car the officers showed their search warrant Despite testimony by them which seemed Co attempt Go conceal the real situation. any reasonable person could only conclude that they intended to take, not the daughter alone, but the whole party to the police station and detain them there.