Kindred v. Stitt
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 1869 WL 5352,51 Ill. 401 |
| Parties | ANDREW J. KINDREDv.JOSEPH STITT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. S. L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of trespass, for an assault and false imprisonment, brought in the court below by Andrew J. Kindred against Stitt, Blair and Towers.
It appears from the evidence that prior to the 5th of Octotober, 1867, several burglaries, and other crimes, had been committed in Woodford county, in this State, and that the plaintiff, Kindred, was suspected of being one of the guilty parties. Accordingly, on the 5th of October, the defendants, Stitt and Blair, citizens of Woodford county, and Towers, a police constable and detective, residing in Peoria county, placed handcuffs upon him and conveyed him to Peoria county, where he was placed in jail, in a filthy cell, and detained there for a period of three days, when he was discharged without an examination, and without having been taken before a magistrate for that purpose. Neither of the parties who participated in the arrest had any warrant therefor. It seems that the detective, Towers, had been informed, by telegraph, by a citizen of Woodford county, that some horses had been stolen near Eureka, in that county, and upon coming to Eureka, Towers was informed by some of the citizens of the various other crimes which had been committed in the neighborhood, and was employed by them to ferret out the guilty parties. Towers testified that he had been informed that the plaintiff kept company with Chambers, Moss and Mishler--persons of bad character--Chambers and Mishler being supposed to be thieves, and Moss being in the habit of gambling and drinking. It was also proven by several witnesses that a few days before the burglaries were committed, on a Sunday, the plaintiff was seen in Cruger, a place about two miles from Eureka, in company with his brother William, (who was also a suspected character,) and Chambers and Mishner. Evidence was also adduced showing that the plaintiff had a bad character by report.
These were the principal facts relied upon as showing probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly. The plaintiff thereupon, appealed, and assigns for error that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence.
Messrs. HARPER & CASSELL, Messrs. INGERSOLL & MCCUNE, and Mr. S. D. PUTERBAUGH, for the appellant, insisted that the arrest was illegal; that under our statute an officer is not authorized to make an arrest out of his proper county without a warrant, and that in this case there was no reasonable ground of suspicion to justify any of the defendants. Counsel also contended that even if all the defendants had authority to make the arrest, it could only be for the purpose of taking the accused before a magistrate for examination. Citing Dodds et al. v. Bowen, 43 Ill. 95.
Messrs. BURNS & BARNES, for the appellees Stitt and Blair. An action will not lie against a peace officer for arresting a person, bona fide, on a charge of felony, without warrant, though it turn out that no felony was committed. So when one is suspected of receiving stolen goods, he may be so detained without warrant to answer to the charge, and the party arrested may be taken to prison till he can be put upon his examination, without first taking him before a magistrate. 1 Hilliard on Torts, 235; Samuel v. Payne, 1 Doug. 359; Rohan v. Swaine, 5 Cush. 281; Davis v. Russell, 2 Moore & Payne, 590; 3 Eng. Com. Law 190; 9 do 688; 12 do 735; 13 do 287; 15 do 618.
An officer may act upon information, not under oath, of his neighbors in whom he has confidence, and if he acts with the belief that the arrest is necessary and detains the felon a reasonable time for the purposes of fair investigation as to the charge, he is not liable for false imprisonment, and it is for the officer to judge of the necessity of an immediate arrest to prevent escape, and for the jury alone to say whether he had cause to suspect the party charged, guilty, and if he act in good faith he is not chargeable, whether the party arrested turn out to be guilty on examination or not. Rohan v. Swaine, 5 Cushing, 281; 1 Hale's P. C. 587; Dane's Abrid. 588; Bacon's Ab. Constable (C.;) Samuel v. Payne, 1 Doug. 359; Beckworth v. Philby, 6 Barn. & Cress. 635.
The officer may, after arrest, discharge the prisoner without taking him before a magistrate. McClougan v. Clayton and Reding, 3 English Com. Law 190; 24 do 673.
Proof of reasonable suspicion of felony where a private person imprisons, goes in mitigation of damages, and where such person acts in good faith, nominal damages only should be allowed. 12 English Com. Law, 617.
Mr. JOHN CLARK, for the same appellees, in addition, cited 2 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 76, 80; 1 Russ on Crimes, 593, 595; Law Reporter, 169, 173, N. S. 6 Term R. 315; section 40 of the Criminal Code. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action of trespass, for an assault and false imprisonment, and a verdict and judgment for the defendants. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff appeals, and makes the point, that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted.
The facts show the arrest of the plaintiff, without any warrant, by private persons, in the county where he lived, and taken to another county, and there confined in jail in a filthy cell, and discharged without examination.
Writers on criminal law and proceedings say, that, in general, an arrest may be made in three ways: by warrant; by an officer without a warrant; by a private person without a warrant.
A warrant, under our law, is usually issued by a justice of the peace, on a complaint made to him, under oath, that a criminal offense has been committed in his county. The warrant for the arrest is usually directed to all sheriffs, coroners and constables within the State. If the criminal be arrested, he is to be proceeded against as provided by secs. 203-207 of the criminal code. Gross' Stat. The execution of the warrant for the arrest is confined to the county in which it issues, except when the offender shall cross the line into an adjoining county the officer may pursue him into such adjoining county, and there make the arrest. Sec. 207 ib.
The magistrate issuing the warrant may make an order on it authorizing a person (to be named in the warrant) to execute it, and he may execute it anywhere in the State, by apprehending and conveying the offender before the magistrate who issued the warrant, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Galan
...a warrantless arrest outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction from which his authority is derived. See, e.g., Kindred v. Stitt, 51 Ill. 401, 409 (1869) (at common law, municipal peace officers had no authority to make a warrantless arrest outside of the political entity in which t......
-
People v. Scalisi
...and could not be estopped or redressed except by immediate arrest. 2 R. C. L. 446; North v. People, 139 Ill. 81, 28 N. E. 966;Kindred v. Stitt, 51 Ill. 401. Policemen were unknown to the common law, but they are generally considered as having the same powers as watchmen and constables. Shan......
-
People v. Doody
...of law and fact, the circumstancesto show it reasonable being the fact and their sufficiency when show being a question of law. Kindred v. Stitt, 51 Ill. 401. It appears that the Buick car was owned by Victor K. Lawson and had been stolen from him on May 7, 1929. On May 25, John Read, a mec......
-
People v. Marino
...make warrantless arrests outside the territorial limits of the political entity which appointed them to their office. (E. g., Kindred v. Stitt (1869), 51 Ill. 401, People v. Clark (1977), 46 Ill.App.3d 240, 4 Ill.Dec. 785, 360 N.E.2d 1160; see generally, 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest § 50.) A well-est......