Price v. Tehan
| Decision Date | 08 March 1911 |
| Citation | 84 Conn. 164,79 A. 68 |
| Parties | PRICE v. TEHAN et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.
Action by Frederick R. Price against Finton Tehan and another for false arrest and imprisonment. Judgment for plaintiff for $50 damages, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The defendant Tehan was a policeman on duty in the city of Wnterbury. An ordinance of that city enacted under authority of the city charter, which made the offense created by the ordinance a misdemeanor, forbade the assembly of persons idly and in crowds upon any footway, sidewalk, or crosswalk, in any street, or in the public squares of the city, and provided that "all persons to the number of three or more assembled and refusing to disperse when commanded to do so by a police officer, special constable, alderman or mayor of said city, shall forfeit and pay a penalty of not more than fifty dollars for every such offense." The plaintiff, who was then a minor, met two friends upon a sidewalk in the center of the city about 8 o'clock one Saturday evening, and there stood in conversation for several minutes with them. His meeting with one of these friends was by appointment; with the other by chance. The sidewalk was at the time crowded. Tehan, who had been specially detailed by the defendant Beach, who was the superintendent of police of the city, to keep clear the streets and walks in the vicinity, noticed from the opposite side of the street, where he was, the three young men standing as stated, and thereby interfering with free passage along the walk. He crossed the street and directed them to move on. They did not move immediately, and the plaintiff who was intending to go to a theater with one of the group, and might with equal propriety take either of two streets to reach there, asked, this friend which way they should go. Tehan, hearing this inquiry, and supposing that it was addressed to him, and because the plaintiff did not move at once, answered by saying, "I will show you which way to go," and arrested him and took him as a prisoner to the police station. The arrest was made for the violation of the ordinance. There was no such violation by either of the three young men, and the plaintiff was not allowed a reasonable time within which to comply with the officer's direction, before his arrest. Tehan believed that there was a violation of the ordinance, and acted in good faith. Tehan took the plaintiff directly to the station house, and there reported to the sargeant on duty at the desk. Here the plaintiff was weighed and measured, his name entered upon the records, and he was then locked up in the cell corridor. The defendant Beach was on duty as chief in authority and in his office in an adjoining room. The plaintiff's two companions followed to the station house, and there, without the plaintiff's knowledge, sought out Beach in his office and requested that the plaintiff be discharged. Beach thereupon sent directions to the sargeant to release the plaintiff upon payment by one of the friends of $5. This sum was paid without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and he was then released. He was then told that if he wished to contest his arrest or have a hearing in court he could appear on the following Monday morning. The first information that the plaintiff received of the action of his friends was after he had left the station house, when he was told that the matter had been settled by the payment of $5, and that he could appear before the court on Monday morning, if he wished a hearing. The plaintiff was so agitated that the information that he could appear in court as stated made no impression upon his mind, and he never appeared there or before any authority. The plaintiff never waived his right to be presented, and never consented to his release any further than to go when told that he might. He was never placed under bonds, nor presented before competent authority.
John P. Kellogg, for appellants.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Binette v. Sabo
...wantonly invaded, at the discretion, caprice or malice either of private individuals, or of the ministers of the law." In Price v. Tehan, 84 Conn. 164, 79 A. 68 (1911), an officer was liable for a warrantless arrest. Liability was imposed because he "failed to keep himself under that contro......
-
Williams v. Adams, 64
...34 (1968); Sims v. Smith, 115 Conn. 279, 161 A. 239 (1932); McKenna v. Whipple, 97 Conn. 695, 701, 118 A. 40 (1922); Price v. Tehan, 84 Conn. 164, 167, 79 A. 68 (1911); and see United States v. Traceski, 271 F.Supp. 883, 885 (D.Conn. 1967). Indeed, as bearing upon an officer's reliance upon......
-
Komorowski v. Boston Store of Chicago
...Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 686, 151 P. 398; Pound on Spirit of the Common Law, pp. 175, 176. As pointed out in Price v. Tehan, 84 Conn. 164, 79 A. 68,34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1182, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1183, in many jurisdictions statutes have been enacted which regulate the subject of arrests in a ......
-
State v. Procce
...State v. DelVecchio, supra, 149 Conn. 574, 182 A.2d 402; State v. Carroll, 131 Conn. 224, 228, 38 A.2d 798; Price v. Tehan,84 Conn. 164, 167, 79 A. 68, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 1182. However, an actual search or an arrest based solely upon probable cause is not justified merely upon the information......