Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1914-04-10
Depends Upon Who Has It.


Falls, who is regular user Of liquor,
went home from Salt Lake, and upon
his arrival officers, under the search
and seizure act, confiscated certain /
liquors he had in his possession. He
instituted suit, and Judges. g. Crowley |
of Idaho Falls, as we'll as others, was
much perplexed as to the course to pur- |
sue, as the individual in question was
citizen of thorough repute, business
man, and not engaged in selling liquor.
Judge Crowley putthe status of the
case up to Attorney General Peterson,
aud among other questions asked the
following.
l. Is it public offense for a person
to carry in his personal baggage intox-
icating liquors into a prohibition dis
trict, if no attempt is made by him to
dispose of the same unlawfully, if the
same is kept at his own private res
idence2
2. Will be justified, under the law,
10 holding such persons to the district
court, without evidence of an attempt
to dispose Of the liquors after they
reach here3
s. Have the officers the right to seize
and search the personal baggage of par
ties coming in here, without search
warrants.
The attorney general covered the
perplexing problem in this manner.
Boise. March 25, 1914.
Hon. s. g. Crowley, Probate Judge,
Idaho Falls, Idaho.
My Dear Judge: l have carefully
considered your letter of March 21st
o and while cannot presume to advise
\ you closely or technically upon the
various points you raise, feel that
there are certain propositions that
may be laid down as true that may as
sist you in the Interpretation of the
law which is causing you trouble.
s take it there is no law in the state
n of Idaho, either federal or state, that
r would prevent man from having Ii
8 quor in his possession for his own use.
! The federal law prevents the shipment
g of liquor into the territory aginst the
l. law of the territory into which it is
h shipped, aud inasmuch as there is no
law in the state to prevent a man from
Q having liquor for his own use, the
9 federal law would not be violated by
such transaction.
AS to whether a PERSONS having a
quantity of liquor in his possession is
/ prima facia evidence of guilt or not
j depends of course, upon great num-
Dor of circumstances that should be
taken into consideration in arriving at
a conclusion. The manner in which
the liquor is packed, the habits Of the
/. individual with reference to the use or
o nonuse of liquor, his general reputation
o as law abiding citizen, the distance
from twet" territory, and many other
things that would weigh in arriving at
a conclusion as to whether the liquor
was held for an illegal purpose should
be carefully considered before definite
III determination is reached by an officer
whose duty it is to enforce the law.
y have no patience with bootleggers, but
ii on the other hand the public should be
Il protected against useless prosecutions.
e. II an officer could put himself in the
Of place of juror in the consideration OF
= the circumstances surrounding these
cases, he might be able toprovide him
self with guide that would be as good
as any he could avail himself of. What
would be evidence to his mind as an
4 individual of the intention of a person
who had liquor in his possession, would
of course, be evidence to his mind as a
juror.
AS to the right Of an officer to search
baggage, If were you would not
dispose of that question until it reaches
you in proper action. There might
be conditions where it would be advis-
able to permit such seizure and search,
and other cases where it would not,
and when the question is properly raised
before you in proper action then it
seems 1t would be time to dispose of it
| cannot see that such question is.
necessarily involved in the ordinary
IS liquor prosecution.
J. With personal regards am,
It j. IL. PETERSON,
, | AAA..