Evening star., 1949-05-12
Police Stute Methods
mo IL

Most Americans will agree that even
the best of laws would be bad If enforced
by methods that hout the rights OF
individuals.
The law against gambling is a case In
point. Most people, even including some
of those who gamble, would like TO see
it enforced against the professionals.
But suppose, for the sake OF Illustration
that the gambling statute was being en-
forced in this way: The District Attorney
writes letter to the Chief of Police saying
he has competent evidence that John Doe
is a gambler, or is about to become
gambler. The Police Chief, upon receiving
such letter, is empowered without further
ado to throw John Doe in jail, and proceeds
to do so. Eventually, through an appeal to
the courts, John Doe may get out, but
meanwhile he has been sitting in jail and
his affairs have gone to pot.
Absurd? Not at all. For while there is
a difference in degree, there Is no great
difference in principle between such
procedure as this and the procedure that
actually could be followed in the current
effort to deprive suspected gamblers OF
telephone service.
If the District Attorney has what he
regards as competent evidence that
phone is being used for gambling he writes
to the telephone company asking that the
phone be removed. Upon receipt OF such
a letter, or without it if the company has
evidence of it's own which 1t believes to
be sufficient, the telephone can be sum-
marily removed. The individual is not
entitled to any hearing. He simply loses
his phone within three days unless he files
suit for an injunction. An injunction suit
is an expensive process and an uncertain
remedy. It is entirely possible, under the
existing procedure, that an innocent person
might lose his phone service and not get
1t back until after protracted court fight.
If he happened to be doctor or lawyer,
for example, to whom phone is essential,
he would have. been punished just as
severely as John Doe, and with almost as
little regard for due process of law. vi M
The Star does not believe that District
Attorney Fay, in striking at communica-
tions as being the Achilles heel of the
professional gambling racket, has any in
tention of depriving innocent people OF
telephone service. IAN agreement has been
made, in cases where suits have been filed,
not to remove phones until the courts have
acted) But Mr.. Fay is no more immune
to error than any one else, ana the pro-
cedure that is being followed contains
possibilities for error that are both real
and wholly unnecessary.
The flaw in the procedure is unnecessary
because 1t can easily be corrected by the
Public Utilities Commission. The telephone
company derives it's power to remove tele-
phones at it's own discretion, without any
kind of hearing or any showing of evi-
dence, from a set of regulations known as
the tariff. This tariff, so far as local
telephones are concerned, is prescribed by
the PUG and can be changed by the PUG.
In The Stars opinion, it ought to be
changed Any individual, even person
of dubious character is entitled to tele-
phone service as a matter of right. OF
course, the individual has no right to use
that service in furtherance of an illegal
purpose But before any ones service is
cut of he ought to be entitled to hearing
before some public agency such as the
PUG. When a hearing is requested, the
phone company should be required to
produce evidence that the phone is being
used illegally. If it can satisfy the PUG
by preponderance of proof that the phone
is being used illegally, then-and only
then-should the service be discontinued.
To do otherwise, to tolerate system under
which any person can be deprived of an
essential public utility without a prior
hearing, smacks too strongly of the police
state method to be tolerated in this
country.
1t happens that the PUG now has before
1t case in which this issue is presented
in clear-cut fashion. Since this case
affords an opportunity to cure the evil in
this existing procedure, it will be discussed
In some detail in an editorial in tomorrow's
Star.