Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1897-06-24
IMPORTANT DECISION
AFFECTING BARHkRBORS SEARCH
AND SEIZURE CASES
OFFICERS HAD NO EXCUSE FOR NOT
SERVING WARRANTS WITHIN TWEEN
TY-FoUR HOURS AFTER ISSUE.

John W. Gut hrie-oue of the most i'm
portant rulings which the highest court
OF Maine has ever been called upon TO
make. The re-cript WAS drafted by
Justice Emery and concurred IN by
justices Peters, Wi-weu, Whitehouse
aud Strout.
The case involved the validity OF nu-
merous scare and ei7ure warrants issued
against liquor dealers in Bar ilafhar. In
every case the warrants Wrre hold FOR
more hsn twenty-fouf hours after issue,
White the deputy sheriff or esu-tatle-
awaited an opportunity to arrest the
respondents
Thus. when the cases caue Il tr4A he
FORE Justice OF Ia, county. attorney, Ter
re-feo3eet, pleaded na.laesean ~ tn
NarHHi> n every case, thrsi. b 1 10, t5s,a-
IS four-Aoar extension which they haa
passed. No Hans To dt-absrte fH, rs-pau-
dents ia -eete- Of cases ~.se Hfrt. and
IN the course Of time the matter fetehrI
the 'aw court for stttlcmeat
lLe question WAS simply Rbether or
net warrant more than twenty four
hours ed eFa- vatid.and the court ase54,a
thus
THE LAW COURTS pr5r-ies.
y warrant to search for iates .aai ing
liquors in a building occupied ~ IA r.
spoudcnt was issued July ~. the DAY =
the making the complaint. It = uot
stated ON what day the warrant came into
the hands OF the officer " no undertook To
execute II, but presumably il Was deiiy-
cred to him at once. He held the warrant
Tor three days, apparently needles,ly. and
then assumed To execute 1t July 3 when
be found and seized some intoxicating
liquors. and then arrested the respondent.
I pom this warrant the respondent j. now
before the court, and contends ~ lmiue
thet. in the absence. OF reasons Tor { e de-
isv. tae ot'5cer'- authority to search and
arrest era thts warrant did not continue
FOR three days and had expired at the
time 81 his arrest,
tn aue- j9n presented i one q fun
dauaataf Importance. aud vet 20 far a.
cur re-earel or that II counsel bs-
,steaaal It has not before received
aa .ud5gs 51n. Either officers have hith-
erfa#s5-Yea sgareh warrants promptly, or
respondents heye not cared % mise tn
5n5->f taa - hesrdUty - da "a. The r.
-HHf thqt W mus, ha,e our Judgment
ON reasoning from acceplea principles
raj her than oa authority.
There are some fundamental and almost
s9lt-egldeat propositions to lie stated at
the outset
" hen there j. named IN any process. or
in the law aut horizing It. time within
which it i. TO be executed and returned
the process cannot be executed after that
time but becomes functus oficio. except
perhaps for return.
When no time Is thus named, the pro-
cess must be executed within a reasonable
/ time from its issuance and becomes fttnc-
tn' oficio thereafter, or the time within
when 1t may be executed il unlimited
and II never becomes funct4s ofcto. how
ever long held back by the officer We
are not able to see any middle ground be-
tween these alternative propo- il ions.
The result OF search under search
warrant, in liquor cases at least is not the
test Of the authority TO make the search
under the warrant. I he validity OF the
/ warrant, the uthority of the officer un-
der ii, TO enter upon the described prem
lses does not depend upon what he finds
after entry. The prior authority or want
OF authority in an officer to begin the ex-
ecutlon of search warrant Is fixed when
he begins. A corollsry OF this PROPOSE
ton is that the life OF a search warrant
does not depend upon the existence or
continued existence OF the liquor de-
scribed in the complaint. As The warrant
may outliye those liquors, SO it may ex-
pire before they disappear.
PRoMPTNEss a PRINCIPLE OF LAW.
Il IS an integral principle in our system
OF Ia" and government, that ministerial
officers assuming to execute a statute or
process upon the property or person OF II
citizen, shall execute il promptly, fully
and precisely. The time OF execution j.
as essential as any other element. This
principle has been sufficiently stated and
explained in former opinions Of this
court. Garter Y. Allen, 90 Me. 296. b. &
NJ. r. X. y. small, 50 Me 49,
We think the foregoing propositions are
applicable With especial di=ectness and
force TO the nature and purpose Of search
warrant. i j. sharp and heavy police
weapon t. b. used most carefully lest il
wound the security or liberty Of the cit
zen. II WAS gaknown to the early com
Hlaa ia%sand came into use almost UNI
noticed ia the Troublesome times Of En-
eil-h history. Lord Coke denied Its le-
gsIity, hut finally the court and parlia-
ment recognizing it, great efficiency con-
tented themselves With carefully restrict
ing and controlling lis use. tEutick y.
Darlington, 10 Howeli's State Trials. 1880,
The danger of It's abuse has been so clear
ly apprehended in this country that con-
stitutional barriers have been erected
against it. in the declaration of rights
in the constitution OF this State. art. )
u l. t,rnvfda5 TINT I,.- ,--.-.,st.. ~,