Wiegand v. Meade, 17.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 17.,17.
• Citation: 158 A. 825
• Parties: WIEGAND v. MEADE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

158 A. 825

WIEGAND

v. MEADE.

No. 17.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 19, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A borough police officer has authority to arrest without warrant one who commits a breach of the peace in his presence.

2. In an action for false imprisonment, the motive of the police officer, in making the arrest, is immaterial on the issue of justification.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hunterdon County.

Suit by John Wiegand against Michael Meade. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued October term, 1931, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and CASE, JJ.

Francis L. Bergen, of Somerville, for appellant.

Harry Stout, of Flemington, for respondent.

CASE, J.

On March 30, 1930, plaintiff was taken into custody by the defendant, a police officer of the borough of High Bridge, and detained at the borough lockup for a period without the lodging of a charge or the issuing of a warrant. The action herein is for false imprisonment. The defense was that the plaintiff had committed a misdemeanor, namely, fighting with another (section 40, an act for the punishment of crimes, Revision of 1898 [2 Comp. St. 1910, pp. 1743, 1758]), in the presence of the defendant, and that defendant therefore had lawful authority to make the arrest. The jury awarded a verdict of $1,000 for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals. We have received no brief on behalf of the respondent.

The judge, in his charge to the jury, made the following statement of law: "On the other hand, if you should conclude that the contention of the defendant in this case is correct and that the defendant in his province as a police officer arrested this plaintiff for a misdemeanor committed in his presence he would have a right to make such an arrest if the misdemeanor or crime charged was committed in his presence and he was acting in good faith in making the arrest. Therefore, if you should reach the conclusion that a crime had been committed in the presence of the police officer, to wit, an assault, and that he made the arrest in good faith without a warrant, he would be within his legal rights and no damages would accrue to the plaintiff in this case."

Defendant contends that the implication from this language is that the defendant, to be justified in making the arrest without a warrant, must not only have been present at the committing of the alleged misdemeanor by the plaintiff, but must, in addition, have made the arrest in good faith. We think that the charge may fairly be so understood. The further contention is that the injection of good faith as an essential factor was error. It was said by Mr. Justice Reed in Mayor, etc., of Newark v. Murphy, 40 N. J. Law, 145, 149: "The limits to the power of arrest by a constable, without process, was well defined at common law. The regard for the liberty of the person was so great that the common law did not confer upon a mere conservator of the peace the power to touch the person of the subject, of his own volition, except in those cases where the interests of the public absolutely demanded it. ...