STATE v. KILDAY, R.I., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General, Alfred E. Motta, Special Counsel, for State. Aram K. Berberian, for defendant.

Judges

PAOLINO, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant, Thomas J. Kilday, was charged by criminal complaint with operating a motor vehicle at an unreasonable speed on a public highway in Warwick, Rhode Island, on August 6, 1958. The state filed a demurrer to the defendant's plea in abatement, which was sustained by the superior court. Following this, the defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty. The defendant excepted to the sustaining of the state's demurrer, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island solely on this exception. No transcript of evidence was submitted; the court's review was limited to the pleadings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether municipal police have authority to arrest persons for traffic violations on state highways within municipal territorial limits.
Whether the defendant's detention from approximately 2:30 p.m. until 9 a.m. the following day for a traffic violation constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the state constitution.
Whether certain statutory provisions governing arrest and detention procedures are mandatory or directory, specifically regarding issuance of summons and release of detainees by police officers.
Whether the statutory provision limiting temporary detention to two hours requires that a person be formally charged within that period or whether detention beyond two hours without charge is unlawful.
Whether the defendant was illegally arrested or detained given that he was formally charged and arraigned within twenty-four hours of arrest.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

The Warwick police lacked authority to arrest individuals for unlawful operation of motor vehicles on state highways within the city limits, relying on statutes related to state highway construction and municipal traffic control.
The defendant alleged that his detention from 2:15 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next day was imprisonment without cause and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under Article I, Section 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution.
The defendant contended that statutory provisions (§§ 12-7-11 and 12-7-12) governing arrest and detention were mandatory, requiring issuance of summons or release within two hours.
The defendant argued that under § 12-7-1, he should have been formally charged within two hours of detention, and failure to do so rendered the detention illegal and any subsequent charge invalid.
The defendant claimed entitlement to communicate with counsel prior to arraignment.

State's Arguments

No statute removes municipal police authority to enforce traffic laws on state highways within municipal limits; legislative intent does not divest municipalities of such power.
The detention period did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The word "may" in §§ 12-7-11 and 12-7-12 is directory, not mandatory, granting discretion to peace officers regarding issuance of summons or release.
The two-hour limit in § 12-7-1 restricts detention without charge but does not require formal charging within two hours; rather, it prohibits unreasonable detention without charging.
The defendant was formally charged and arraigned within twenty-four hours, complying with statutory requirements.
The defendant was not entitled to counsel communication before arraignment under the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kominsky v. Durand, 64 R.I. 387	Prior to the enactment of G.L. 1956, § 12-7-1, it was illegal to detain a person for any purpose other than to bring him before a magistrate and charge him with an offense.	Supported the interpretation that § 12-7-1 was intended to limit detention without charge and to prevent unlawful imprisonment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the defendant's claims in light of the statutes and constitutional provisions cited. First, it held that no statute expressly removes municipal police authority to arrest for traffic violations on state highways within municipal boundaries, and it would be unreasonable to infer legislative intent to divest such authority.

Second, the court found no merit in the claim that detention from the afternoon until the next morning constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the state constitution.

Third, the court interpreted the statutory language in §§ 12-7-11 and 12-7-12, concluding that the word "may" is directory, not mandatory, thus vesting discretion in officers to decide whether to issue summons or release detainees. The police exercised this discretion by holding the defendant for arraignment the following morning.

Fourth, regarding § 12-7-1, the court rejected the defendant's strict interpretation that formal charges must be brought within two hours of detention. Instead, the statute aims to prevent unreasonable detention without charge but does not impose a strict two-hour deadline for charging. The statute requires that within two hours, the authority must decide to release or continue detention with the obligation to formally charge and arraign promptly thereafter. Detention beyond two hours without charge is unlawful and may constitute false imprisonment.

Finally, since the defendant was formally charged and arraigned within twenty-four hours, the court held that the arrest and detention were lawful. The defendant's claim to have counsel before arraignment was also found without merit.

Holding and Implications

The defendant's exception to the sustaining of the state's demurrer was overruled. The trial justice did not err in sustaining the demurrer, and the case was remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

The direct effect is that the defendant’s challenge to the arrest and detention procedure failed, affirming municipal police authority to enforce traffic laws on state highways within city limits and upholding the discretionary nature of arrest and detention statutes. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation principles and constitutional protections.

Show full summary ...

STATE vs. THOMAS J. KILDAY.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Traffic Violations. State Highways. Lacking a statute which takes away from municipalities the power to police highways within their territorial limits or any statute whereby the state has pre-empted such power with respect to state highways within such limits, it would be unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended, by the incorporation of certain highways into the state highway system, to divest municipal police of the power to enforce state laws on such highways within their territorial limits.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Detention on Traffic Violation. Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Respondent contended that arrest and detention from about 2:30 p.m. to 9 a.m. the following morning, when he was charged with operating a vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed, was a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of state constitution. Held, that there was no merit in respondent's contention. R.I. const., art. I, § 14.

3. ARREST. Statutes Construed. Detention for More than Two Hours. Discretion in Officer. Respondent contended that certain statutes having reference to detention and arrest of a person were mandatory in character, namely, the statute which provides that in any case in which a peace officer is authorized to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor, he may instead issue a summons, and the one providing that an officer in charge of a police station may release any person arrested without a warrant without requiring the person to appear in court when he is satisfied that there is no ground for a criminal complaint, or he has been arrested for drunkenness, or if the arrest is for a misdemeanor, upon that person signing an agreement to appear in court at a time designated. Held, that the word "may" as used in the statutes referred to is directory and not mandatory and under the statutory sections referred to peace officers and officers in charge of police stations are vested with discretionary power and may determine whether to release a defendant, to issue a summons, or to hold him for arraignment under other statutory provisions. G.L. 1956, §§ 12-7-11, 12, 13.

4. ARREST. Time of Detention. Arraignment. Charge Against Defendant. Defendant, who was arrested for traffic violation, contended that he was illegally arrested in that the arresting officer did not comply with the statute which provides for temporary detention of persons suspected of crime for a period not to exceed two hours and, at the end of such period, the person so detained "shall be released unless arrested and charged with crime." Held, that construction argued by defendant was not sound and statutory provision did not mean that a person detained must be charged with an offense sometime within the prescribed two hours after the detention commenced, since it was clear that the intent of the statute was to prohibit detention for an unreasonable period without formally charging the person so detained with an offense, but not to prescribe a limit of two hours within which the charge must be brought. G.L. 1956, § 12-7-1.

5. ARREST. Time Limitations. Time Limit as to Charges. Statute which provides, in effect, for temporary detention of persons suspected of crime for a period not to exceed two hours and, at the end of such period, the person so detained "shall be released unless arrested and charged with crime," prescribes a limitation of two hours within which the arresting authority must either decide to release the person detained or continue him in detention with the ultimate obligation of formally charging him with an offense and bringing him before a court for arraignment and, when the arresting officer fails to follow that course and holds a person beyond the prescribed period of two hours, such detention becomes unlawful ab initio and subjects the arresting officer to liability for false imprisonment. G.L. 1956, § 12-7-1.

6. CRIMINAL LAW. Arrest Statutes. Charge and Arraignment. Where defendant was formally charged with speeding and duly arraigned before district court within 24 hours after his detention, Held, that he was not illegally arrested on the theory that it was necessary he be charged with a crime within two hours of his arrest. G.L. 1956, § 12-7-1.

PAOLINO, J.

This is a criminal complaint charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle on August 6, 1958 upon a public highway of this state, in the city of Warwick, at an unreasonable speed. After the state's demurrer to the defendant's plea in abatement was sustained, the case was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury. The defendant was found guilty and thereafter prosecuted the instant bill of exceptions. The case is here solely on his exception to the ruling of the trial justice sustaining the state's demurrer. No transcript of evidence has been filed in this court, and the only record before us is the pleadings.

In the first count of his plea, defendant contends in substance that the police officers of Warwick are without authority to arrest persons unlawfully operating motor vehicles on state highways within the territorial limits of the city. He has cited certain statutes dealing with the construction and maintenance of state highways. He has also cited other statutes which regulate the power of municipalities with relation to traffic control. But no statute has been cited by him which takes away from municipalities the power to police highways within their territorial limits. Nor has he cited any statute whereby the state has preempted such power with respect to state highways within the territorial limits of municipalities. It would be unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended, by the incorporation of certain highways into the state highway system, to divest municipal police of the power to enforce state laws on such highways within their territorial limits.

In the second count defendant alleges that on August 7, 1958 he voluntarily went to the Warwick police station to assist the police in a criminal investigation; that he arrived there at 2:15 p.m.; that ten minutes later an officer of the department imprisoned him in a cell without any cause whatsoever; and that he was kept in a cell until 9 o'clock on the following morning when he was arraigned in the fourth judicial district court on a charge of operating a vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed.

There is no merit in defendant's contention that such detention was a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of sec. 14 of article I of the state constitution. Nor is there any merit in his contention that the provisions of general laws 1956, §§ 12-7-11 and 12-7-12, are mandatory.

Section 12-7-11 provides that "In any case in which a peace officer is authorized to arrest without a warrant a person for a misdemeanor, he may instead issue to him a summons * * *" substantially in the form prescribed in that section.

Section 12-7-12 provides: "The officer in charge of any police station may release any person in his station who has been arrested without a warrant: (a) Without requiring such person to appear in court, when he is satisfied that there is no ground for making a criminal complaint against such person or when such person has been arrested for drunkenness but in the judgment of the officer need not be brought before a magistrate; or (b) If the arrest is for a misdemeanor, upon that person signing an agreement to appear in court at a time designated."

The word "may" as used in §§ 12-7-11 and 12-7-12 is directory and not mandatory. Under these sections peace officers and officers in charge of police stations are vested with discretionary power. In the instant case the police in the exercise of such discretion saw fit not to issue a summons or to release the defendant. Instead the officer in charge of the station held defendant for arraignment on the following morning in accordance with the provisions of § 12-7-13. The pertinent portions of that section are as follows: "Every person arrested shall be released either on bail or as provided in § 12-7-12 or shall be brought before a judge of the district court within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of his arrest * * *."

It is undisputed that defendant was brought before a district court and formally charged within twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest. The defendant's allegation that he was imprisoned "without any cause whatsoever" is ambiguous. Apparently he contends that he was illegally arrested on the ground that the arresting officer did not comply with the provisions of § 12-7-1. That section authorizes the temporary detention of persons suspected of crime for a period not to exceed two hours and provides that at the end of such two-hour period the person so detained "shall be released unless arrested and charged with crime."

The defendant seems to construe § 12-7-1 to mean that a person thus detained must be charged with an offense sometime within the prescribed two hours after the detention commenced, and that if this procedure is not followed the detention is illegal and no charge can be brought against the person at a later time while he is under such illegal detention. We do not agree with this construction.

[4-5] In our opinion the clear intent of the statute is to prohibit detention for an unreasonable period without formally charging the person so detained with an offense, but not to prescribe a limit of two hours within which the charge must be brought. The statute definitely prescribes a limitation of two hours within which the arresting authority must either decide to release the person detained or continue him in detention with the ultimate obligation of formally charging him with an offense and bringing him before a court for arraignment. When the arresting officer fails to follow that course and holds a person beyond the prescribed period of two hours, such detention becomes unlawful ab initio and subjects the arresting officer to liability for false imprisonment. Prior to the enactment of this statute, public laws 1941, chapter 982, section 1, now G.L. 1956, § 12-7-1, it was illegal to detain a person for any purpose other than to take him before a magistrate and charge him with an offense. See Kominsky v. Durand, 64 R.I. 387.

Since the pleadings in the instant case disclose that defendant was formally charged and duly arraigned before the district court the next day, the second ground pleaded in abatement does not avail him. There is no merit in the defendant's contention that he was entitled to communicate with counsel before his arraignment.

For the foregoing reasons it is our opinion that the trial justice did not err in sustaining the state's demurrer.

The defendant's exception is overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

STATE v. KILDAY