Court Opinion

ID: 9537348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:16:26.64072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:29.557726
License: Public Domain

Mallery, J.
(concurring) — The alleged false arrest in this case had this factual background:
An old man came to the police station at 10:30 p. m. and told the police that his son had two guns, a big one and a little one; had knocked on his door and threatened to kill him; and that he had slipped out a window and had come to the police station. This was a statement of the commission of a felony. The police believed him and acted in their official capacity and in good faith.
The dissent questions the right of the police to believe and act upon such an unsworn statement, and suggests that the old man should have been required to go before a magistrate and procure a warrant. Such a requirement would subject law enforcement procedures to the law’s delays incident to court procedures. It would mean the end of effective police protection for law-abiding citizens. It is not practical to call a judge to make an appointment for a hearing when a burglar is in the house.
The question of credibility prior to arrest should not be allowed to dominate and impair law enforcement. It is *378true the boy who cried “wolf” had an impaired credibility, but the refusal of police protection on that account exacted too high a price for such a fault.
A policeman’s performance of duty would become a mere gesture if he were made personally liable for being deceived, or if the reasonableness of his acts were to be judged on the basis of post-arrest investigations.