Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-24
,ass" be substituted for the majority

pass be substituted for the majority I
report.
Mr.. STAPLES of Knox: Mr.. Presi-
dent: This is something that has
grown out of rum case, and after
the last vote which has just been taken,
depriving the judges of discretion In
| those cases, l feel but little courage
| to argue this case, although l think II
one of the most important, and one IN
volving the rights of every man,
woman and child in the State of Name
1t is a case where the Sturgis Com
| mission, in the city Of Lewiston, mag
| lining that in certain dwelling house
| liquor might be secreted somewhere,
| went there with warrant and Vlrtu-
| ally demolished every room on the
| lower floor of that house, and made 1t
| untenable so that the man and his
| family had to move out.
| 1 do not care to discuss that case
excepting as it bears upon this bill. The
| man brought an action against two
| Sturgis deputies, after the house had
been demolished, and he, obtained a
| verdict at the second trial of about
$500 with costs, and the Sturgis depu-
ties bill, including their attorney,
amounted to between 5000 and $1,000.
The supreme court of Maine had rem
| dered this decision against these depu-
| ties that they had acted outrageously
| and beyond the scope of the authority
conferred upon them by the statutes
of the state. I will read the law court
| decision. The case was carried to the
law court and a majority of the judges
! OF our court decided that these men
acted wantonIy and beyond the scope
of their authority in the case. The re-
i script is by the chief justice Of the
State of Maine.
i !. The constitutional guaranty that
"the people shall be secure IN their
i persons, houses, papers and posses
sionS from all unreasonable searches
; ard seZureS,'' is q restraint upon oft-
GERS executing a search warrant as
| we'll as upon magistrates issuing it.
9. While officers in executing war
rant to search a dwelling house Occu-
pied by a family, may, and should.
search thoroughly in every part of the
house where there is reason to believe
the object searched for may be found,
they should also be considerate of the
comfort and convenience Of the occu-
pants and be careful to injure the house
n or furniture no more than reasonably
necessary.
i 3. When officers searching a DWELL
ing house for Intoxicating liquors have
no reason to believe that such liquors
are concealed within the walls or par
titionS of the house, but desire to as
certain whether any pipes leading to
some receptacle for liquors, are con-
cealed there, their sounding and even
probing of the walls and partitions for
that purpose should be done with as
little damage as possible.
4. When officers for the purpose only
of ascertaining whether such pipes are
concealed within the walls and parti-
tionS of q dwelling, make use OF an
axe, q picllaxc and croWbar, and tear
out the paper, plaster and lathS en-
trCly around the walls of every room
on the first floor of q dwelling house
. for Il width generally of from two to
four feet, leaving the debris on the
floors and carpets Of the rooms, they
!; act unreasonably, do unnecessary DAM
age and thereby exceed their authority
and become liable to the owner there
for t- ..,
), Now I know that an officer has a
right, in o reasonable way to search
dwelling house, but I do not believe
that they have right to take crow
: bars and axes and pickaxes and de-
mollsh a'house, as one of the men said
before our committee, that he believed
an officer had q right to raZe @ house
to the ground in searching for liquors.
l do not believe it and the court says
they have no right to do it. I believe
that you believe in the constitutional
guaranty that every man should be
safe in his person and property against
understandable interference or seizure.
If crime is committed. an officer has
a right to do certain things, but he has
no right in any case whatever to tear
down and destroy a mans house in or
der to carry out his purpose My be-
lief is that the State should not pay
these bills when the supreme court has
declared that they have acted unreal
sonaoly and in a manner which made
them liable. l do not believe that the
State should not pay the bills when
the officers are forced to destroy some
property in their search / have no
objection to that, but I say that when
the supreme court of Maine says that
a man has acted unreasonably and eX-
ceeded his authority, that then the
State should not be called upon to pay
the bills as they We're in this case
There should be a restraint upon the
officers. and 1 know of no better re-
straint than to say to them, if you eX-
coed your authority, the State will not
pay your bills: and if you leave this
matter open in this way, any officer
whether he be drunk or sober, whcth-
er a Sturgis deputy or anybody else,
can come into mans house with a
warrant and destroy it because he has
no responsibility, and he says, if they
sue him, the State will pay my ex-
pcnses, and whatever is found against
me- the State will step up and pay and
furnish me an attorney to defend me
in that case.
I do not believe the Senate will vote
for it, / think it is wrong and unsafe
| for the inhabitants of this state to
have such a ruling made as was made
IN this case. ! do not believe they
should have license to do as they
please in such q matter as this
| Mr.. GOWEIJ, Of York Mr. praci-