Case Name: FOX v. SMITH
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-01-10
Citations: 108 N.Y.S. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: FOX v. SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 108
Pages: 181–186

Head Matter:
(123 App. Div. 369.)
FOX v. SMITH.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 10, 1908.)
1. Constitutional Law—Police Power—Laws Regulating Private Detectives.
Laws 1898, p. 1120, c. 422, § 1, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1002, c-362, providing for the regulation and control of private detectives, and requiring them to obtain licenses procurable upon application and inquiry showing the applicant’s good character and competency, are within the; police power of the state, and are constitutional.
2. Licenses—Statutes—Construction—Statutes Licensing Private Detectives.
A person who agreed to act as private detective to watch the movements of a husband; and report to the wife, for which he was promised a certain fee, undertook “to engage in the business of a private detective for hire or reward,” within Laws 1898, p. 1120, c. 422, § 1, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1002, c. 362, requiring private detectives to be licensed, though he was not regularly engaged in the business.
Clarke arid Ingraham, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Appellate Term.
Action by Charles D. Fox against Bessie E. Smith. From a determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Henry C. Bumstine, for appellant..
Arthur K. Wing, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
Two questions are presented by this appeal. One is as to the constitutionality of section 1, c. 422, p. 1120, Laws 1898, as amended by chapter 362, p. 1002, Laws 1901, quoted at length in the opinion of Mr. Justice CLARKE. That it is within the police power of the state, and therefore constitutional, I entertain no doubt. The evil results which have in innumerable cases followed upon the employment of so-called "private detectives" are well known to every judge, to the members of the bar, and to the community generally. Undoubtedly such agencies must often be employed and undoubtedly many of the persons following the calling are honest and honorable', but it is equally unquestionable that many dishonest and dishonorable persons have undertaken to act as private detectives, and have been quite unable or unwilling to resist the temptation to resort to perjury and blackmail. That persons' should be forbidden to follow this calling without an inquiry into their character, and the issuance of licenses by the state, is reasonable, and conducive to good order and the welfare of the community. There would seem to be at least as much justification for a statute requiring private detectives to be licensed, as there is for requiring employment bureaus (People ex rel. Armstrong v. Warden, 183 N. Y. 223, 76 N. E. 11, 2 L. R. A. [N. S.] 859), or plumbers (Schnaier v. Navarre Hotel & Imp. Co., 182 N. Y. 83, 74 N. E. 561, 70 L. R. A. 722, 108 Am. St. Rep. 790), or persons following other lawful pursuits, to take out licenses ás a condition of doing business. The second question is whether'the appellant came within the provisions of the statute. Concededly he "undertook to engage in the business of a private detective for hire or reward," for the gravamen of his complaint is that he agreed to act as private detective to watch the movements of defendant's husband and report to her, for which he was promised a certain fee for which he now sues. He was thus undertaking to do precisely what the statute forbade him to do unless he had taken out a license. I cannot agree with Mr. Justice CLARKE that a single violation of the statute does not constitute an infraction of it, and, if one does not, I know of no rule by which we may determine how many violations should be deemed to constitute such an infraction. If not one, why any number? Nor do I agree that the statute was aimed only at persons regularly and avowedly engaged in the business of private detective, advertising themselves as such, having an office and conducting an agency or business. To so limit the operation of the act would be to emasculate it and render it easy of evasion by the very persons who most need regulation. Experience, I think, will show that the evil results following upon the practice of private detectives do not as a rule attach to the work undertaken by established and well-known agencies, but to the work of irresponsible persons having no business reputation to endanger, and no established character to lose. In my opinion the necessities of the case require that the act should be most stringently applied to the unattached, irresponsible persons who undertake detective work occasionally, when no easier means of earning money presents itself. If the statute has any value, it should he applied to such cases. The determination should be affirmed, with costs.
PATTERSON, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, J., concur. CLARKE and INGRAHAM, JJ., dissent.