Hammitt v. Straley

• Decision Date: 29 December 1953
• Docket Number: No. 77,77
• Parties: HAMMITT v. STRALEY
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 641

61 N.W.2d 641

338 Mich. 587

HAMMITT v. STRALEY

No. 77.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 29, 1953.

William John Beer, John B. Osgood, Pontiac, for appellant.

Glenn C. Gillespie and William A. Ewart, Pontiac, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

In this case the plaintiff sued to recover damages for illegal arrest and imprisonment. At the close of the proofs, on trial by jury, the court granted a motion of the defendant for a directed verdict of no cause for action. From the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff appeals. The principal question here is whether the arrest without a warrant was legal.

About 10:30 p. m., August 27, 1952, the defendant, chief of police of the city of Pontiac, arrested the plaintiff, without a warrant, on the oral complaint of one Mrs. Sidwell, and took him to the Oakland county jail. There the plaintiff was booked on the charge of 'investigation to assault with intent to do great bodily harm,' and held overnight. The issue here is whether the officer in making the arrest without a warrant had reasonable cause to believe that a felony had been committed and that the plaintiff had committed it.

About 9:45 in said evening of August 27, 1952, the defendant chief of police received a telephone call from one Mrs. Sidwell, at his office in Pontiac, as to which he testified as follows:

'Q. * * * tell the jury what Mrs. Sidwell said to you on the telephone that night. A. As I said when I finally succeeded in getting her collected in her mind, the first thing I can remember her telling me over the phone was that there was a man coming to the house to kill her and I said 'What man" and she said 'A man I ride to work with.' I said, 'Who is this talking?' and she said, 'This is your neighbor.' As I said up to that day I was not acquainted with any of my neighbors. I said, 'What is your name?' and she said 'Mrs. Sidwell, you know, I live just a couple of houses from you' and I had to get her, I had to have her identify the house before I could place her, and I asked her, 'Well, now, you just tell me what the trouble is.' She said 'A man I ride to and from work with is threatening to come and drag me out of the house by the hair of the head and beat me within an inch of my life.' I said, 'Who is this man?' She said, 'Mr. Hammitt.' I said 'How long have you known him?' 'About a year and a half or so' and I said, 'Is he there now?' She said, 'No, he is not here now, but he just got through calling me up' and she said 'I am just scared to death.' I said 'You'd better lock the doors.' She said, 'I've got my doors locked.' I said, 'I will try to send an officer to your house.' I said, 'Just a minute, describe him to me.' She said, 'I don't know anything about him, I just ride back and forth to work with him.' I said 'What caused him to make such a threat.' She said 'It all started about a week ago when he tried to run me down with his car.' I said, 'Why did he try to do that?' She said, 'Because I refused to ride with him any more.' I said 'Why?' and she said 'Because he started making advances towards me and abusing me with his conversation and I just couldn't stand it any more. I wouldn't let my husband talk to me that way and I certainly won't let him.' I said, 'How long has this gone on?' She said, 'Just since I stopped riding with him. I just don't want to have anything to do with him. I've tried to avoid him. I meet him on the street and he hollers or orders me to get in the car, or he is going to get me.' 'What specific instance, what specific times has he done this?' and she said 'Just last week when he tried to run me down with a car.' I had her describe that to me as best she could and her voice sort of faded away. I said, 'Hello, are you still there?' Then she was just whispering. I said, 'What is the matter, can't you talk?' She gave me to understand she couldn't very well. I said, 'Are you so frightened you can't talk?' She said, 'Yes.' I couldn't understand her conversation, her voice at that time was just so distant that I told her, I said, 'All right, I'll try to have an officer out to the house as soon as possible. You keep your doors locked and if there is anything we can do we certainly will,' having obtained a description of the man from her.

'Q. Just a second, please, sir. Is that the conversation which you had on the telephone? A. Partially.

'Q. Well, is that all of it? A. Not quite all.

'Q. Then will you tell us the rest of it? A. I obtained a description of the man from her, what kind of a car he was driving and I tried to learn the license number of the car from her, and she didn't remember the number. She said it was a green '50 Buick sedan. * * * I learned his address, she said it was Fairgrove, she didn't know the number, so that is about the substance of the initial conversation.

'Q. You made a memorandum of it, I think you say that is annexed there? A. Yes, that plus the personal conversation I had with her some 15 or 20 minutes later.

* * *

* * *

'A. * * * After the telephone conversation was concluded, I contacted the sergeant on duty, asked what detectives were working that evening, he told me Detective DePau, I found Detective DePau in the detective office and asked where his partner was, he said he was working alone. I told him about the complaint I received from Mrs. Sidwell, a hysterical woman in fear of her life. I said 'She has made a complaint now, but,' I said, 'I couldn't get it as clear as we should get it over the phone.' So, I said, 'You are going to have to go out to the house and talk to her,' and I said, 'Do you know anything about this man?' He said, 'No, I don't.' I said, 'All right, let's check the identification bureau to see if there is a record against him there.' We did check the identification bureau, found the record ¹. After finding the record I said, 'If you are working alone like this, I can't let you go alone. We don't know what kind of a character he is. I can't let you go alone.' Then we went out to Mrs. Sidwell's house.'

The defendant then testified further as to what Mrs. Sidwell told him at her home. In substance, he said it was the same as she had tole him over the telephone, amplified as to what she had told him had occurred when Hammitt tried to run over her with his car. She said that she had waited 15 of 20 minutes past her quitting time from work and had left by a rear entrance 'so that he would not be around, but as she was walking on the sidewalk she was nearly run over by Hammitt. She stated Hammitt must have waited for her to come out of the building, he drove his car along the roadway as she was walking along the side-walk, he called her, to her, and when she didn't look up or answer him, he cursed her and called her vile names and then threatened to get her. She became very frightened and hurried her walk and suddenly heard the motor of the Hammitt car speed up and race, and the sound coming close to her. She glanced up and saw Hammitt's car come over the roadway directly where she was walking, he jumped out of his car and was walking up towards her, calling her vile names and threatening to kill her if she didn't get in the car with him. Mrs. Sidwell states(d) she ran across the curbway and roadway, stumbling over piles of dirt in the roadway, fearing he would catch up with her, she continued running across the fields. She fell down and injured her knee, but thinking Hammitt might still chase her, she continued running on, narrowly escaping being struck. She ran between the houses and to her house on Liberty street. * * * That is the sum and substance of the conversation that took place in the home and on the telephone.'

The defendant's testimony was undisputed, and was corroborated by the testimony of Mrs. Sidwell. Under the circumstances, did the officer have reasonable cause to believe that a felony had been committed and that Hammitt had committed it? If so, the arrest without a warrant was legal. C.L.1948, § 764.15 (d), Stat.Ann. § 28.874(d).

'Whether an officer has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested committed a felony must depend upon the situation in the particular case.' People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 9 N.W.2d 893, 894.

'If possible, any doubt should be resolved in favor of an honest discharge of duty by peace officers, and the courts should not place them in fear of responding in damages for the lawful and proper discharge of that duty.' Odinetz v. Budds, 315 Mich. 512, 24 N.W.2d 193, 195.

"Probable cause for an arrest has been defined to be a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty. Yet probable cause does not depend on the actual state of the case in point of fact, as it may turn out upon legal investigation, but on knowledge of facts and circumstances which would be sufficient to induce a reasonable belief in the truth of the accusation.'

'While stated by courts and textbook writers in different language, the test, as was said in People v. Wilson, 55 Mich. 506, 21 N.W. 905, seems to be: Were there 'any facts which would induce any fair-minded man of average intelligence and judgment to believe' that defendant had committed a felony? Tiffany on Criminal Law ([How] 4th Ed.), p. 92, thus puts it:

"Any constable or sheriff may arrest any person whom he suspects, on reasonable grounds, of having committed a felony.'

* * *

* * *

'While the rights of individuals to be protected from unwarranted arrests must be carefully guarded, the rights of the public must also be considered. Robberies and holdups are now so frequent, and the opportunity to get away quickly so convenient that, unless officers may act promptly on information apparently reliable and circumstances reasonably convincing, there is but little hope of apprehending the guilty parties. If the officer must delay to ascertain that the information received comes from...