Opinion ID: 1494037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: As to Interferences in General.

Text: An examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the police of Jersey City pursued a course of conduct towards the appellees which possessed no sanction whatsoever in statute or ordinance. The appellees contend that, If the police policy were in terms embodied in a criminal statute    such a statute would be unconstitutional. They cite the language of Mr. Justice Brandeis in Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 U.S. 468, 478, 57 S.Ct. 857, 862, 81 L.Ed. 1229, stating, Members of a union might, without special statutory authorization by a state, make known the facts of a labor dispute, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. It is demonstrated by the record in the case at bar that though there is no ordinance of Jersey City which deals specifically with the right of picketing in labor disputes, none the less the practical effect of the actions of the police in the case at bar was to prohibit picketing except upon terms and conditions imposed by the individual members of the police force. It follows that when members of a police force remove individuals from a picket line, deport them from the territorial limits of a city or detain them in police custody under guise of arrest and release them without charges and without trial, the police are acting in defiance of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. When, as in the case at bar, such conduct receives the consent and approbation of those charged with the conduct of city government, justice is destroyed. Such a condition is abhorrent in a democratic community. An individual has a right to trial by properly constituted judicial authority upon a defined standard of criminal responsibility set forth by statute or ordinance. He must have the opportunity to be heard and to call witnesses in his own defense. This is the very essence of due process of law as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527; Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674, 90 A. L.R. 575; United States v. Ballard, D.C., 12 F.Supp. 321, 325. The findings of the trial court in respect to the issues under this heading are fully supported by the evidence and injunctive relief was properly granted.