Evening star., 1948-12-14
Good Luw-ond Bod

Good low-und Bad
Two local cases, having gone through the
mill of the Supreme Court, supply inter-
esting illustrations of how criminal law
Is made.
From the point of view of the layman,
and subject to its obvious frailties, 1t
seems reasonable to conclude that in one
case the court has made good law, and
in the other bad.
The first case involved the use of ques-
tionable evidence to convict suspected
numbers operator. without any kind Of
warrant, the police officers forced their
way into the landlady's apartment of a
rooming house in which the suspect lived
This was wholly illegal entry. Once in
side, however, they proceeded to search the
house. Peeking through transom of the
suspects room on the second floor, they
observed him counting money and saw
numbers slips and other gambling equip
ment. He was arrested, the visible evidence
was seized, and this evidence was used
against him at the trial.
The trial Judge approved on the theory
that, so far as the roomer was concerned,
there had been no illegal search or seizure.
The Court of Appeals, dividing two-to-one,
affirmed this view. In the Supreme Court,
however, with three justices dissenting, the
conviction was reversed on the ground that
the evidence had been seized illegally, and
therefore should not have been admitted
against the defendant. :. -
Here Is curious division of judicial
opinion-a division which came close to
sanctioning dangerous abuse of authority
by the police. With reference to the tactics
of the police, Justice Jackson, in a concur
ring opinion, said: Having forced an
entry without either a search warrant or
an arrest warrant to justify it, the felon-
ious character of their entry, it seems to
me, followed every step of their journey
inside the house and tainted its fruits with
illegality. - This method of law en-
forcement displays shocking lack of all
sense of proportion" With due difference
to the judges who thought otherwise, this
will strike most people as being the right
view OF the matter and good law
The other case revives in more trouble
some form the doctrine laid down in the
McNabb Casa doctrine that severely
limits the use of confessions in Federal
courts in the absence of prompt arraign-
ment of suspects.
Few decisions have brought as much con-
fusion as the McNabb ruling. This has
been due in part to the circumstance that
the court apparently acted on an erroneous
assumption as to some of the facts. In
other part it may be attributed to language
In the decision which seems to say one
thing when the court apparently meant
another.
Prior to the McNabb decision the Federal
rule<had been that arrested persons must
he taken before oammitting magistrate
Nithoatx 'unsea ason4blsR delay. Bueit.hxd
not been the rule that an unreasonable
delay invalidated otherwise voluntary con-
fessions. The McNabb decision, so far as it
can be understood, made new law in
judicially decreeing that~eonfessions can
not be used against accused persons if they
have been held for an unreasonable length
OF time without commitment, and it, in
the circumstances, the confessions are the
result OF psychological pressure growing
out of the illegal detention.
The latest ruling, involving a local theft
suspect, seems to go step further in its
apparent holding that mere illegal de-
tention, without psychological or other
pressure, is enough to preclude use of a
confession. 1t is important to note that
this has nothing to do with coerced or
involuntary confessions. Their use has
always been banned under the Constitu-
ton. What the court now says is that a
confession, no matter how willingly given,
Is inadmissible If the accused was not
taken promptly before a committing
magistrate.
OF this rule, Justice Reed, speaking for
himself, the Chief Justice, and Justices
Jackson and Burton, declared: "Today's
decision puts another weapon in the hands
OF the criminal world. Apparently the
court intends to make the rule of commit
ment without unnecessary delay an iron
rule without fieMbility to meet the emer-
gencies of conspiracies, search for confed-
crates, or examining into the ramifcations
of criminality."
If this Interpretation by the minority is
correct, most people will agree with them
that the majority decision Is bad law.
tuberculosis Debate