Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-26
Criminal Freed

In setting aside the rape conviction
Of Andrew R. Mallory, the Supreme Court,
for practical purposes, has outlawed ar
rests based on suspicion as distinguished
from probable cause" The immediate
effect, in so far as the case is concerned,
Is that the prosecutor, representing the
people, admits he Is licked and the pris-
oner goes free.
Mallory was arrested in connection
with an assault on a woman in an apart
ment house here in 1854. He was picked
up by police at $3.50 the following after
noon and, with two nephews, was taken
to police headquarters for questioning.
The interrogation lasted from 80 to As
minutes At pm. the three were asked,
and they agreed, to submit to lie de-
tector tests. There was delay of about
two hours in arranging the tests, during
which period the suspects were fed. The
nephews took the test first, and it was
about pm. before the testing of Mallory
began. It lasted an hour and half, and
ended in an oral confession.
At 10 o'clock the police tried to ar
raign him (the law requires an arraign-
ment without unnecessary delay but no
arraigning officer could be located. With
Mallory's consent, deputy coroner was
called in. He examined the suspect and
found mo indicia Of physical or psyche
logical coercion" In other words, no
third-degree tactics were involved, and
there was no claim that such methods
were used. The sole question was
whether the delay in arraigning Mallory
Che was not arraigned until the follow
Ing morning) invalidated his oral and
his subsequent written confessions.
The court held that they were invalid
on the ground that there had been I'M
necessary delay in the arraignment The
opinion went on to say that "the police
may not arrest upon mere suspicion but
only on probable cause" and that while
an arrested person may be booked" by
the police, "he is not to be taken to police
headquarters in order to carry out a
process Of inquiry that lends itself, even
If not so designed, to eliciting damaging
statements to support the arrest and
ultimately his guilt"
In short, this is not case in which
confession has been invalidated because
1t was obtained by third-degree methods.
The entirely proper ban on the third
degree is extended to ban arrests on sus-
picion alone, to forbid questioning Of
; suspect prior to arraignment and to re-
quire prompt arraignment. The arraign-
ing officer cannot hold a suspect, how
ever, unless there is probable cause to
believe he committed the offense. So
the police, evidently, must make out a
{ case Of probable cause" without uues-
tioning suspect-which will be very
dif1cult in many cases. The court holds
that this was the intent Of Con-
. gress In requiring arraignment without
unnecessary delay. If this ruling mis-
CONSTITUTES the congressional intent Con-
Z greSS can make the necessary correction.
At least two corrections suggest
themselves. One is for Congress to specify
by law the length of time a suspect can
be held before arraignment. This is done
In some Of the States. Another might
be to provide for taking a suspect before
magistrate, who would advise him as
to his legal rights, after which the sus-
pect could be held for reasonable time
for investigation before being charged
or released. Unless something of this
sort is done, the public is going to suffer
from the inability of the police to make
valid arrests under the restrictions i'm
posed by the court.