The Portland daily press., 1897-06-19

forthwith" before the magistrate for
trial, r. S, Oh. ~, Sec. 40. In view of
the nature and history of this peculiar
process, this language of the legislature
fairly indicates the intention that the
warrant should be executed Immediate
ly'' anda forthwith and not in the un-
| limited discretion of the officer. State VS..
Leach, 3S Me. 49,
| Guided by the principles and reasoning
| above stated, we are led to the conclusion
| that a search warrant for Intoxicating
| liquors must be served within a reasona-
| bic time after issuance or be abandoned.
| What is reasonable time within which
the service of such d warrant can lawful
! ly be made is also question of law for
the court. The officer is not held to more
| than reasonable promptness. The time
he may take, the reasonable time, neces-
sarily varies with the circumstances.
The hour in the day of making the com
plalnt-the distance of the place to be
searched-the state of the weather-the
condition of the roads, the lack of facil-
tiles for travel, the distractions met,
ana other circumstances may make a
long delayed service practically lmmedl-
ate and forthwith and hence within a
reasonable time
In this case none of these nor any cir
ctliis6ances are shown. The officer lived
IN the immediate neighborhood of the
place to be searched. Nothing appears
indicating that the warrant could not
nave been easily executed on the day the
complaint was made. No reason what
ever Is shown for the delay of three days.
such delay was needless In cases of
seizures without warrant it has been held
unreasonable and hence unlawful to de-
lay the warrant more than twenty four
hours. Weston V: Carr, II Me. 1856.
State V. Dunphy, 70 Me. lO4. State VS..
Riley, so Me. IA An unexplained delay
of three days in serving such warrant
seems clearly needless, unreasonable and
hence unlawful, and destructive of the
power of the warrant
DANGERS OF DECISIONS.
1t is urged that the conclusion reached
in this case will materially impair the
efficiency of the most useful instrument
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 show the de-
lay to have been needful and hence rea-
sonable, and hence remove the case from
the purview of this opinion. On the 9th
er hand, the more promptly the warrant
is served, the more likely the officer is to
find the liquors complained of, and the
more easy to prove the identity. Every
hours delay, whether from the officers
inefficiency or from his collision with re-
spondents, endangers 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 read
ness to seize the liquors at the moment of
deposit before they can be concealed
that such procedure is very efficacious
and even essential to circumvent the cum
ming of liquor sellers, and that the rule
here evolved will nullify it. If such a
practice obtains it should be nullitied.
No prosecution can be lawfully begun,
no criminal process lawfully issued be
fore the offense is committed. The pracs
tice suggested, if it obtains, is scandal
lous abuse of legal process based upon the
perjury of the complainant and subjecting
all concerned in it to penalties and dam
ages.