State ex rel. Reed v. Harris

• Decision Date: 14 August 1941
• Docket Number: 37579
• Citation: 153 S.W.2d 834,348 Mo. 426
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of L. B. Reed and Thomas Kearney, Relators, v. Brown Harris, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, at Kansas City, and H. P. Root
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

153 S.W.2d 834

348 Mo. 426

State of Missouri at the relation of L. B. Reed and Thomas Kearney, Relators, v. Brown Harris, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, at Kansas City, and H. P. Root

No. 37579

Supreme Court of Missouri

August 14, 1941

Preliminary rule discharged.

William S. Hogsett and Leslie A. Welch for relators.

(1) Prohibition should issue because on the face of Root's petition the respondent judge has no jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief prayed. (a) A court of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin law enforcement officers where the complainant makes no claim that such officers threaten irreparable damage to his property rights. Hann v Fitzgerald, 342 Mo. 1166, 119 S.W.2d 808; State ex rel. Chase v. Hall, 297 Mo. 594, 250 S.W. 64; Wellston Kennel Club v. Castlen, 331 Mo. 798, 55 S.W.2d 288; State ex rel. Castlen v. Mulloy, 55 S.W.2d 294; State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 425, 56 S.W. 474; Beach v. Bryan, 155 Mo.App. 33; Russo v. Miller, 221 Mo.App. 292, 3 S.W.2d 266; Kearney v Laird, 164 Mo.App. 406, 144 S.W. 904. Section 1683, Revised Statutes 1939, did not change the rule. School District v. McFarland, 154 Mo.App. 411, 134 S.W. 675. The facts alleged by Root do not constitute violation of property rights. Ryan v. City of Warrensburg, 342 Mo. 761, 117 S.W.2d 303; Wolf v. Harris, 267 Mo 405, 184 S.W. 1139. (b) A court of equity has no jurisdiction when complainant has an adequate remedy at law -- and this complainant has such remedy. Modern Horseshoe Club v. Stewart, 242 Mo. 421. (c) On the ground of public policy, courts of equity have no jurisdiction to enjoin law enforcement officers in the performance of administrative functions. State ex rel. Igoe v. Joynt, 110 S.W.2d 737; Selecman v. Matthews, 321 Mo. 1047, 15 S.W.2d 788. (d) Article III of the Missouri Constitution prohibits the judicial department from interfering with the executive department in the exercise of its administrative functions. State ex rel. Shartel v. Westhues, 320 Mo. 1093, 9 S.W.2d 612; Russo v. Miller, 221 Mo.App. 297. (2) Prohibition should issue because Root's petition not only does not state, but under the pleaded facts, cannot state, a cause of action. State ex rel. Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. v. Dew, 312 Mo. 300; Dahlberg v. Fisse, 328 Mo. 213, 40 S.W.2d 606; State ex rel. Barnett School Dist. v. Barton, 104 S.W.2d 284; State ex rel. Hog Haven Farms, Inc., v. Pearcy, 328 Mo. 560, 41 S.W.2d 403; State ex rel. v. Wood, 155 Mo. 425, 56 S.W. 474; State ex rel. Hyde v. Westhues, 316 Mo. 457, 290 S.W. 443. Root cannot state a cause of action, because (a) The power of law enforcement officers to fingerprint persons lawfully arrested exists without express legislative authority. Holker v. Hennessey, 141 Mo. 527; Sec. 8354, R. S. 1939; Bartletta v. McFeeley, 107 N.J.Eq. 141, 152 A. 17; Downs v. Swann, 111 Md. 53, 73 A. 653; State ex rel. Bruns v. Clausmier, 154 Ind. 599, 57 N.E. 541; Mabry v. Kettering, 89 Ark. 551, 117 S.W. 746; United States v. Kelly, 55 F.2d 67; Shaffer v. United States, 24 App. (D. C.) 417, writ of certiorari denied in 196 U.S. 639, 49 L.Ed. 631, 25 S.Ct. 795; People v. Les, 267 Mich. 648, 255 N.W. 407; People v. Sallow, 100 Misc. 447, 165 N.Y.S. 915; United States v. Cross, 20 D. C. 365; Owensby v. Morris, 79 S.W.2d 934, 83 A. L. R. 127. Taking fingerprints of persons lawfully arrested does not violate the constitutional prohibition against self incrimination. People v. Les, 267 Mich. 648, 255 N.W. 407; Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo. 489; State v. Jeffries, 210 Mo. 302; State v. Sharpless, 212 Mo. 176. (b) The Bertillon statute, sections 4184-4187, Revised Statutes 1939, did not destroy inherent administrative power to fingerprint persons lawfully arrested. (c) Said statute has no application to fingerprinting and photographing because it was not so intended when enacted. Southwest Mo. Light Co. v. Scheurich, 174 Mo. 235; State ex rel. Laclede Gas Light Co. v. Murphy, 130 Mo. 10; Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103; State ex rel. Aull v. Field, 112 Mo. 554, 20 S.W. 672; Fischbach Brewing Co. v. St. Louis, 231 Mo.App. 793, 95 S.W.2d 335; City of Lexington ex rel. Menefee v. Commercial Bank, 130 Mo.App. 687, 108 S.W. 1095; Pate v. Ross, 229 Mo.App. 836, 84 S.W.2d 961; State ex rel. Rippee v. Forest, 177 Mo.App. 245, 162 S.W. 706. The Bertillon system did not include fingerprinting and photographing. Laws 1899, p. 59; Sec. 7702, R. S. 1939. (d) The Bertillon statute was not an enabling statute. Since it was not in derogation of any existing law, it created no new powers. Sutherland on Statutory Construction (1 Ed.), pp. 410, 415, 416; Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 107. (e) Declarations contained in State v. Baldwin, 317 Mo. 759, 780, are not controlling, were dictum, were erroneous and should be disapproved. (3) There is urgent public need for this Honorable Court to exercise its discretion by issuing prohibition herein. State ex rel. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mulloy, 52 S.W.2d 469; State ex rel. Moss v. Hamilton, 260 S.W. 466; State ex rel. Nolen v. Nelson, 310 Mo. 526; State ex rel. Funkhouser v. Spencer, 166 Mo. 271; State ex rel. Caldwell v. Cockrell, 280 Mo. 269.

Clif Langsdale, Clyde Taylor and Roy W. Rucker for respondents.

(1) Where it is contended that equity may not intervene because only personal rights are involved, the court, where it is apparent that a constitutional right has been violated, will search out and discover, if possible, at least some nominal property right upon which injunctive relief may be awarded. 28 Am. Juris. 264; Ex parte Badger, 226 S.W. 936; 14 A. L. R. 301. (2) Missouri has a statute which abolishes any distinction between purely personal and property rights so far as the jurisdiction of a court of equity is concerned. R. S. 1939, sec. 1683; 28 Am. Juris. 226; Macklind v. Ferry, 108 S.W.2d 21; Hughes v. State Board of Health, 137 S.W.2d 523; Pacific Movement v. Wright, 117 S.W.2d 647; Thompson v. Malden, 118 S.W.2d 1059; Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.W.2d 807. (3) The right asserted by plaintiff below which is being invaded by defendants below, is a fundamental human right in the nature of a property right, even under the ancient chancery rules. United States v. Kelly, 51 F.2d 263; Cooley on Torts, 29; Railroad v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250; Lutherman v. Romey, 143 Iowa 233, 121 N.W. 1040; Munden v. Harris, 134 S.W. 1076. (4) The injunction sought below does not interfere with the exercise of any lawful authority possessed by the defendant police officials. Noble v. Un. River Ry., 13 S.Ct. 271; Garfield v. Goldsby, 29 S.Ct. 62; Lane v. Watts, 34 S.Ct. 965; Payne v. Central Pac. Ry., 41 S.Ct. 314; Santa Fe Railroad v. Fall, 42 S.Ct. 466; Colo. v. Toll, 45 S.Ct. 405; Work v. La., 46 S.Ct. 92; 32 C. J. 240; State v. Johnson, 137 S.W. 589. (5) Taking pictures and fingerprints of persons who have not been convicted of a felony is unlawful. Secs. 4184-4187, R. S. 1939. (6) Statute having described the persons whose photographs and fingerprints may be taken excludes the taking of the photographs and fingerprints of any other persons. 59 C. J. 984; State v. Sweany, 195 S.W. 714; Sutherland on Statutory Const., sec. 327; Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506; Johnson v. Ry., 117 F. 462; Johnson v. Baker, 139 P. 87; Kincade v. Becchi, 164 N.E. 199; People v. Deutsche, 94 N.E. 162; Pierce v. Bekins, 172 N.W. 191; Boswell v. Sinns, 219 S.W. 803; Van Sweeden v. Same, 230 N.W. 191; In re Bailey Estate, 103 P. 232; Milholland v. Stanton, 231 S.W. 332; 25 R. C. L. 981. (7) It is illegal for police officers to take the pictures and fingerprints of a person who has not been convicted of a felony. State v. Baldwin, 297 S.W. 10. (8) The ruling in the Baldwin case (supra) on the question of the right of the police department to make photographs and take fingerprints of persons not convicted of a felony is not obiter dictum. 15 C. J. 952; Kane v. McCown, 55 Mo. 181; State v. Moore, 147 S.W. 551. (9) Plaintiff below does not have an adequate and complete remedy at law. 32 C. J. 42, 60-61; State v. Guinotte, 57 S.W. 281; McAlister v. Graham, 206 S.W. 393; Springfield Co. v. Springfield, 85 Mo. 674; St. Louis Bank v. Kennett, 74 S.W. 481; Gordon v. Mansfield, 84 Mo.App. 373; Calvert v. Bates, 44 Mo.App. 632. (10) There is no yardstick by which the damages of the plaintiff below may be measured. 32 C. J. 62; Cooley on Torts, sec. 29; Union Pac. Ry. v. Bottsford, 141 U.S. 250. (11) The taking of fingerprints and photographs is a part of the Bertillon Signaletic System. Am. Ed., Dr. Bertillon's Book (1896), 79A-79B.

Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Henry G. Morris, Ivan Lee Holt, Jr., George D. Chopin and Oliver Senti for Department of Police for City of St. Louis, amicus curiae.

(1) Prohibition should issue for the reason no cause of action is stated under the facts pleaded. (a) The statute relied on by respondent Root has no application to the point involved. (b) The acts complained of are within the scope of the general police powers of the State and its enforcement officers. Secs. 4346, 4834, 6581, 8354, R. S. 1939; Art. XVII, Ch. 30 R. S. 1939. (2) Prohibition should issue because no jurisdictional matter was presented to respondent judge, and (a) No constitutional question is involved; (b) The point involved is a moot question; (c) Absent attempted use of evidence of fingerprints at trial, no question was presented for determination. State v. Cerciello, 86 N. J. L. 309, 90 A. 112, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1010; People v. Roach, 215 N.Y. 592, 109 N.E. 618, Ann. Cas. 1917-A 410; State v. Connors, 87 N. J. L. 419; Moon v. State, 198 P. 288; Lamble v. State, 114 A. 346; Commonwealth v. Albright, 101 S.Ct. 317; Garcia v. State, 229...