Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-03-10
Court Scores Police
Tendency 10 Arrest
Without Warrants
Continued From First Page.)

UuttVUI w 0tbulItS
Continued From First Page.)
potentially even If not presently
factually." the opinion stated.
1t went on to say: The re-
quirement of probable cause
for action without a warrant
is surely no less exacting than
is the necessity for probable
cause for the issuance of
warrant. But. if officers can
arrest without a warrant and
never be required to disclose
the facts upon which they based
their belief of probable cause
If, IN other words. they have an
untouchable power to arrest
without a warrant-why would
they ever bother to get war
rant?"
Criticize HOltZOff.
The majority opinion also
held that the trial judge, Alex
ander Holtzoff, entertained a
defense motion. during the trial,
to suppress the evidence as il
legally seized because of the
Illegal arrest. This motion was
rejected enormously by Judge
Holtzoff. the opinion stated.
But in his dissent, Judge Mil
Ter pointed out that, if such
a motion is not made before
trial, the trial Judge has discre-
tionary power to entertain it
or not during the trial as he
may see fit.
Judge Miller pointed out that
Wrightson did not make pre-
trial motion to suppress. The
judge further held that on the
basis of the transcript, it may
be inferred that Judge Holtzoff
did not actually entertain the
motion, under his discretionary
power, and thus did not actually
reject it in a legal sense.
Called for Hearing
If Judge Holtzoff had really
considered the motion on its
merits. he would have conducted
a hearing, apart from the jury.
on the legality of the arrest.
Judge Miller said.
Nobody is more conVerSant
with the rules of civil and GRIM
inal procedure than is the
learned trial judge Judge Miller
said of Judge Holtzoff.
Because of Judge Holtzoff's
great knowledge of the law he
would have held hearing of
the motion on it's merits had he
actually been considering it,"
Judge Miller said that regard
less of the existence of probable
cause for arrest without war
rant" the judgment of convic-
ton should be affirmed "be-
cause the trial Judge exercised
his discretion mot to consider
the motion.
Defends Police.
Writing of the arrest, Judge
Miller said that the reason for
the officers presence at the
apartment is clear.
Their investigation had lead
them to believe Wrightson had
committed the crime and they
had been informed that some of
the fruits of the robbery were in
his apartment. That is why
they went to Wrightson's apart
ment and that is why, when he
gave his name, they instantly
arrested him. Certainly the
officers believed Wrightson had
committed the ROBBERY and had
reasons for their belief"
The judge said, however, that
the legality of the arrest is not
properly IN issue.
Representing Wrightson on
appeal were Attorneys Saul G.
Lichtenberg and Evan T. Davis.
Has Robbery Record.
WrightSon was % in July,
1858. when police reported that
he confessed taking part in two
supermarket holdups that netted
a gang of bandits $4,000.
In sentencing Wrightson and
three others in one of the su-
permarket cases, Judge Holtz-
off commented: Il have had
occasion to say before that an
armed rohber is a potential mur-
derer"
Wrightson went to trial in the
second case last spring and was
sentenced in June TO serve 4 TO
II years, to follow the expiration
of his sentence in the earlier case
Court records do not show an
appeal in that case SO he faces
that sentence regardless of the
outcome of his new trial in the
case reversed today.
Court records show that
Wrightson was found guilty OF
one robbery and pleaded guilty
to three others in June, 1850. He
drew a siX-month-to- three-yeas
sentence in one of these cases
and ore to three years in the
other three-all to run concur
rently.