The Portland daily press., 1897-06-19
SOME PROPOSITIONS.

| There are some fundamental and almost
self-evident propositions to be stated at
the outset.
When there is named in any process,
or in the law authorizing it, time with
| in which it is to be executed and re-
turned, the process cannot be executed
! after that time, but becomes functus
| officio except perhaps for return.
| When no time is thus named, the pro-
| cess must be executed within reason
able time from its issuance and becomes
| functuS Officio thereafter, or the time
within which it may be executed is I'M
limited, and it never becomes functus
officio however long held back by the Off
Ger. We are not able to see any middle
ground between these alternative PROPOSE
| lions.
The result of a search under search
| the test of the authority to make the
| search under the warrant. The validity
| of the warrant, the authority of the Off
Ger under it to enter upon the described
| premises does not depend upon what he
| finds after entry. The prior authority,
| or want of authority, in an officer to be-
gin the execution of a search warrant is
proposition is that the life of a search
warrant does not depend upon the exist
ence or continued existence of the liquor
| described in the complaint. AS the war
| rant may outlive those liquors, so it may
expire before they disappear.
PROMPT EXECUTION.
1t is an integral principle in our system
of law and government, that ministerial
officers assuming to execute a statute or
process upon the property or person of
a citizen, shall execute it promptly, fully
and precisely. The time Of execution is
as essential as any other element. This
principle has been sufficiently stated and
explained in former opinions of this
court. Carter V. Allen, 50 Me. 1885, B..
& M. r. r. v. Small IS Me. 1862.
We think the foregoing propositions are
applicable with especial directness and
force to the nature and purpose of a search
warrant. 1t is sharp and heavy police
weapon to be used most carefully lest it
wound the security or liberty of the citi-
zen. 1t was unknown to the early COM
mon law and came into use almost un-
noticed in the troublous times of English
history. Lord Coke denied it's legality,
but finally the courts and parliament,
recognizing it's great efficiency, contented
themselves with CAREFUL restricting and
controlling its use. Entick V. CARING
ton 10 Howel1s State Trials, 1000. The
danger of its abuse has been so clearly ap-
pretended in this country that constitu-
tional barriers have been erected against
it. In the Declaration of Rights in the
Constitution of this State, Art. 5, it is
provided that the people shall be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and pos
sessions from all unreasonable searches
and seizures.
Nothing in the complaint or warrant
or in the law concerning them indicates
that, after complaint is made, the war
rant is to be held by the magistrate or
officer as a weapon to be used at his dis
erection. The very nature of the search
warrant indicates that when complaint is
made, the warrant (f used at all) should
be promptly issued and executed. The
purpose is to seize the thing alleged to be
at that time in the place to be searched,
to prevent its removal or further conceal
ment.
THE CASE OF LIQUORS.
Especially is this so when complaint is
made for a warrant to issue to search for
intoxicating liquors. The complaint is
against the particular liquors on deposit
at the date Of the complaint, and the war
rant under the Declaration or Right, Art.
5, can be issued against those liquors
only,-but such liquors are usually being
continually disposed of and replaced, if
at all, by other and perhaps different
liquors. Unless the warrant is issued
and served at once, the officer is likely to
find only liquors which were deposited
after the complaint was made In any
case of delay it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to prove the identity of the
liquors found with those complained
against. The prosecution would fail, re
sulting only i'll expense to the State, and
expense and annoyance to the citizen.
The legislature has recognized this ne.
cessiUy of immediate execution of the war
rant in liquor prosecutions and has com
manded it. The officer is expressly di-
rected by the warrant and the statute to
'make immediate return of said war