Evening star., 1955-03-11
The Police Take the Rap

HG TOVCC UNS IH6 NOp
If read as an admonitory lecture to the
judges and prosecutors of the trial courts,
warning them again of dangers inherent
in abuse of the constitutional safeguards
against unwarranted search and seizure,
the Court of Appeals decision yesterday,
ordering new trial of a convicted robber,
may serve useful and important purpose
If read as criticism of the police, in
their arrest of the robber nearly two years
ago, the majority opinion of the court
raises grave doubt as to whether such crit
icism of the police is justified Further
more, the effect of such criticism is apt to
be more confusing than helpful to the
police.
AS rule police officers in felony cases
may arrest without warrant, provided
they have and can establish probable cause
to believe they are arresting the felon. And
as rule, If the arrest is legal, search
incidental to such arrest is also legal. Two
veteran police officers of the robbery squad
were sure they had probable cause, early
on the morning of July 20, 1858, to arrest
man named Samuel WrightSon without a
warrant and to conduct search of his
apartment. Twelve days before there had
been an armed robbery of supermarket.
After midnight on July % the police re-
ceived information that one of the robbers
was Wrightson. They were told he was in
his apartment, with some of the loot, and
their informant guided them there. Three
hours later they obtained entrance, through
a ruse, to the apartment, arrested Wright
son for investigation, found some OF the
loot. He later confessed, and with his three
confederates was convicted and sentenced.
The Court of Appeals opinion does not
say that the officers lacked probable cause
to make the arrest without warrant, or
to search the apartment in connection with
the arrest. The error that Judge Prettyman
and Judge Fahy seem to find is that if the
police did have probable cause, no evidence
to support that fact was brought out in the
trial before Judge Holtzoff. If that conten-
ton is correct, the fault lay with the judge
and the prosecutors - not the police.
Whether that factual evidence was suffi-
GENTLY developed is lost to the reader in
maze of procedural technicality involving
compliance by the defendant with rules as
to the timing of motions to dismiss, and
conflicting Interpretation of what the Judge
meant when discussing the motions Judge
Wilbur K. Miller, dissenting, thinks Judge
Holtzoff was correct, and supports the police
dIlO GIIc Glldl JuuSc. JuuSc 11OAIAOAp VI
course, thought he was correct. So the
controversy finds two upright and learned
judges reaching one decision, and two other
upright and learned judges reaching con-
Trajectory decision on the same record of
what happened.
Judge Prettyman remarks that "the
tendency of police officers to arrest people
without warrants and without probable
cause is matter of vast public impor-
tance" and has been since Colonial days,
and the courts have warned them (the po-
lice) enough in these respects" But it is
not established that the arrest in this case
was made without probable cause. And If
the police are to read this decision as
guide to their future conduct, it is a fair
question to ask anybody, including the
judges, how they should proceed the next
time, II they face the same set of circum-
stances they had to deal with in the case
Of the armed robber Wrightson, a man
known to them by his previous criminal
record.
In his dissent Judge Miller expresses
his concern over the judicial tendency in
recent years toward rather mawkiSh exag
geration of the rights of criminals +. :. with
too little concern for the protection Of the
public" Whether this tendency is "mawk
ish" is matter of individual opinion.
There can be little doubt, however, as to It's
confusing effect on the police, who are on
the firing line in a fe-and-death battle
with hardened and ruthless criminals.