Miller v. Gillespie
| Decision Date | 31 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 4.,4. |
| Parties | MILLER v. GILLESPIE et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Geo. W. Bridgeman, Judge.
Suit by Francis J. Miller against John Gillespie and others. Bill dismissed, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Owing to what seems to have been either the ignorance or malice of the complaining witness, a warrant was issued by one of the police justices of the city of Detroit for the arrest of the plaintiff, upon a charge of feloniously embezzling and converting to his own use an article of personal property. The warrant was delivered for service to one of the policemen of the city. Learning that in his absence an officer or officers had visited his home, plaintiff called police headquarters to find out what was wanted, and was told to present himself at the police court and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. Presenting himself, he was told by the officers that he was under arrest, and, while awaiting the calling of his case, he was asked by a policeman certain questions, which he answered; the officer making a memorandum in writing. Being arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, gave his personal recognizance for appearance for trial, and, the cause being at a subsequent day called for trial, a jury impaneled, and testimony taken, he was dismissed by order of the court. It seems to be clear that he had committed no offense and that the trial ought to have been concluded with a verdict of acquittal. The entry made in the docket of the court is: ‘Testimony taken and case dismissed.’
Plaintiff is a man of affairs, has a family, consisting of a wife and nine children, was never before arrested or charged with having violated the criminal laws. The police department of the city of Detroit requires a report to be made when an arrest is made by a police officer. It is made and preserved in the form of a card, and in the particular case the card record contains the plaintiff's name, residence, the nature of the charge, which is given as ‘simple larceny,’ the names of the officers who made the arrest, and the result of the trial, which is stated in the single word ‘dismissed.’ Upon the face of the same card-the whole card being a printed form with blank spaces-appears the following:
Plaintiff, testifying, said:
The bill in this cause is filed to obtain a decree requiring defendants, who are respectively described as the commissioner of the Metropolitan police force of the city, its superintendent, and its secretary and record keeper, ‘to surrender for cancellation, all statements claimed to have been made in the enforced statements from your orator, also that all reference to your orator upon the books, blotters, statements, histories, and in the records or written memoranda of the police department of the city * * * be decreed to be given up for destruction to the register of this court,’ and for other and general relief. The bill was dismissed, and complainant has appealed.
Argued before KUHN, C. J., and STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, BROOKE, and FELLOWS, JJ. James H. Pound, of Detroit, for appellant.
Allan H. Frazer and Gillette Wastell, both of Detroit, for appellees.
OSTRANDER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
It may be assumed, I think, that two purposes are supposed to be served by making and by preserving in the police department a record such as the one in question here. There may be other reasons and purposes; but two, at least, appear to be fairly obvious ones. The responsible superior police officials are thereby furnished with definite and authoritative data of the activities of the department. This is, I assume, one purpose. The other is the preservation, for future reference and use, of the data so secured. The form of the record before us serves both purposes, and that it was intended to do so is evidenced by the form of the report. It gives information, not only that a person giving a certain name has been arrested, but information also of the personal appearance of the prisoner as well as his nationality and some of his acquirements.
It is not complained that the record is a false one. It has not been claimed, in argument, that it is improper, or a violation of private or property rights of the person arrested that such a report should be, in the first instance, made. Indeed, the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eddy v. Moore
...State ex rel. Bruns v. Clausmeier, 154 Ind. 599, 57 N.E. 541 (1900); Downs v. Swann, 111 Md. 53, 73 A. 653 (1909); Miller v. Gillespie, 196 Mich. 423, 163 N.W. 22 (1917); State ex rel. Reed v. Harris, 348 Mo. 426, 153 S.W.2d 834 (1941); Roesch v. Ferber, 48 N.J.Super. 231, 137 A.2d 61 (1957......
-
United States v. Rosen, 66 Crim. 641
...834 (1941); Bartletta v. McFeeley, 107 N.J.Eq. 141, 152 A. 17 (1930), aff'd, 109 N.J.Eq. 241, 156 A. 658 (1931); Miller v. Gillespie, 196 Mich. 423, 163 N.W. 22 (1917); Hodgeman v. Olsen, 86 Wash. 615, 150 P. 1122 (1915); Downs v. Swann, 111 Md. 53, 73 A. 653 (1909); Mabry v. Kettering, 89 ......
-
People v. Dehart
...items referencing him to the court for destruction. The trial court dismissed Miller's suit and he appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed. Id. at 428. Initially, recognized there were at least two "fairly obvious" purposes served in making and preserving the police department's record: (1) "T......
-
Beaumont v. Brown
...knew or had reason to know the letter would be passed on or even read by anyone other than" the addressee. In Miller v. Gillespie, 196 Mich. 423, 163 N.W. 22 (1917), the plaintiff had been wrongly arrested and the case was dismissed. He sued to have the police department destroy information......