Maghan v. Jerome, 6704.

• Decision Date: 18 January 1937
• Docket Number: No. 6704.,6704.
• Citation: 67 App. DC 9,88 F.2d 1001
• Parties: MAGHAN et al. v. JEROME.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

67 App. DC 9, 88 F.2d 1001 (1937)

MAGHAN et al. v. JEROME.

No. 6704.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued December 10, 1936.

Decided January 18, 1937.

Rehearing Denied February 10, 1937.

Julian I. Richards, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Theodore A. Brown, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, C. J., and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, JJ.

GRONER, J.

Plaintiff (below) was waitress in a boarding house in Washington City. Her employer had left a pocketbook containing money in a drawer in the dining room and a little later discovered that it had been stolen. She notified the police, and the two officers who are appellants here were sent to make an investigation. Prior to their arrival the pocketbook was found in a closet but the money was gone. Certain behavior of plaintiff aroused suspicion, and the officers questioned her, and upon their insistence she went with them to the station house where she was searched. No money was found, and she was released after being detained about half an hour. Ten days later she commenced this action for false arrest (i. e., arrest without a warrant), which was tried to the court without a jury. The trial judge, although finding that the officers had probable cause for believing that a theft had been committed and that plaintiff was guilty, held that there was not probable cause for suspecting that the theft amounted to a felony. He thereupon entered judgment for the plaintiff against the officers for $100.

The undisputed facts show that when the officers reported to the keeper of the boarding house they were informed by her of the loss of her pocketbook and its contents amounting to "about $30.00." The pocketbook, which as we have seen had been recovered, was exhibited to the officers, though nothing apparently was then said as to its value. In the trial the boarding house keeper valued it at $5, but the trial court held as a matter of fact that it was practically worthless, and it was on the theory that the total larceny amounted to only $30 that the offense was held to be a misdemeanor.

In the District of Columbia petit larceny is defined to be taking and carrying away of property of the value of $35 or less and is punishable by a fine of not more than $200 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Title 1, section 21, and title 6, section 61, Code of 1929. And, while nothing in the Code designates petit larceny as a misdemeanor, the Criminal Code of the United States (section 335, as amended, 18 U.S.C.A. § 541) — applicable to the District of Columbia — provides that: "All offenses which may be punished by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year shall be deemed felonies. All other offenses shall be deemed misdemeanors." We are, therefore, in agreement with the trial court that the stealing of less than $35 is a misdemeanor in the District of Columbia, and we likewise agree that in this jurisdiction, as at common law, the rule is settled that an officer may not arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant unless it is committed in his presence or within his view. Title 20, section 491, D.C.Code, 1929.

From this, it follows that the police officers can justify the arrest only by a showing that they had reasonable cause to believe that a felony had been committed. In other words, by showing that the circumstances were such as to induce them reasonably to believe that plaintiff had stolen...