The Somerset reporter., 1897-07-01
Important Decision.

La the case State W John W. Gurthrie
decision drafted by Justice Emery and
concurred by Justices Peters, Wiswell.
WhltehOuse and Strout, has been made
public The case involved the validity
of numerous search and seizure warrants
issued against liquor dealers iu Bar
Hafbor. Ia every case the warrants
were held for more than twenty-four
hours after issue, while the deputy
sherifls or constables waited an opp0r-
tunity to arrest the respondents.
Following we give the conclusion ar
rived at by the above justices.
Guided by the principles and reason
ing above stated we are led 10 the con-
clusion that search for Intoxicating
liquor must be served within reason
able time after issued or be abandoned.
What is reasonable time within
which the service of such warrant can
lawfully be made is also q question of
law for the court. The officer is not
held to more than reasonable prompt
ness. The time he may take, the reason
able time, necessarily varies With the
circumstances The hour in the day of
making the complaint, the distance of
the place to be searched the state of the
weather, the condition of the roads, the
lack of facilities for travel, the Obstrue-
tions met, and other circumstances may
make a long delayed service practically
immediate and forthwith, and hence
within reasonable time.
In this case none of these nor any cir
cumstances are shown. The officer lived
in the immediate neghborhOod of the
place to be searched. Nothing appears
indicating that the warrant could not
have been easily executed on the day the
complaint was made. No reason what
ever is shown for the delay of three days.
Such q delay was needless. In such
cases of seizure without warrant, it has
been held unreasonable and hence unlaw-
full to delay the warrant more than
twenty-four hours. weston V. Carr,
Il Statevs. Riley, Sc Me. l44.) An I'M
explained delay of three days in serv-
ing such a warrant seems clearly need.
less, unreasonable and hence unlawful,
and destructive of the power of the war;
raut.
1t is urged that the conclusion reached
efficiency of the most useful instrumen-
talities for the enforcement of the liquor
statutes. Even if such were the effect
we could not shrink from declaring the
law as we believe it to be, But no such
effect need be apprehended. No case
can be stated in which needless delay
of service will aid the prosecution. Any
such case when stated will ipso factO
Oh - do 10 F,,1 4
hence reasonable, and hence remove the
case from the purview of this opinion.
On the other hand the more promptly
the warrant is served, the more likely
the officer is to find the liquors COM
planned of, and the more easy TO prove
the identity. Every hours delay,
whether from the officers ineficiency or
from his collision with the respondents,
eudangers the success OF the prosecution.
1t is suggested that the prosecution
often needs to obtain search warrants in
advance in order to have them in readi-
ness to seize the liquors at the moment
of deposit, before they can be concealed
that such a procedure is very effica-
cious and even essential to eircumvent
the cunning of liquor sellers, and that
the rule here evolved will nullify it. II
such a practice obtains II should be null
lifted.
No prosecution can be lawfully begun,
no criminal process lawfully issued
before the offence is committed. The
practice suggested, if it obtains, is a
scandalous abuse of legal process, based
upon the perjury of the complainant
and subjecting all concerned in it to pen
alties and damages.
Respondents discharged.