The Penn's Grove record., 1921-09-09
SEARCH AND SEIZURE En-
planned
The Prohibition Law Complies With
the Constitution on Reasonable
Grounds

Grounds
q. Rowland Monroe, the anti-Saloon
League attorney, in commenting on
the latest bulletin of the Association
against the Prohibition Amendment,
remarks:
The A. A. P. AS statement, re-
garding search and seizure and the
Fourth Amendment, is very trite, and
its bald misstatemnt that There isn't
a single prohibition agent who
has not violated the Fourth Amend
ment, would also condemn every con-
stable or other officer who ever served
a search warrant for any purpose.
These liquor advocates always seek
to startle and mislead-never to
honestly inform.
What are the facts about search
and ~-o;z-"- u tie Nolstead and the
Van Ness Laws Are they, or are
they not cor titCtiCnaI, faIr and rea-
5oHable
"The Fourth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution, quoted by Mr..
Fish - il ne had discovered some
thing new, provides only against 'un-
reasonable search and seizure saying:
".N.a warrant shall issue except:
% Upon probable cause, ~ sup
ported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing (3) the place
10 be searched and (4) the papers or
things TO be seized
"CoT ". Jersey Constitution reads
the same.
The only question is: Does either
the Nolstead or Van Ness Law con-
aict with these proper and most fami-
liar provisions?
CAS- a matter of fact, neither law
presents a thing that is new in search
and seizure. 1t is old, familiar, well
established procedure-nothing to
cause any Mysteries, except by law
breakers who find the shoe pinching.
The Nolstead Law does not even
set forth this procedure. 1t simply
to an earlier Act, and says a
search warrant may issue as in the
Espionage Act
s"These acts were approved by the
Judiciary Committee of Congress, com
many of the ablest lawyers in
The United States. They were fought
over, pro and con, in the eyes Of all
the Nation. To suggest that any pro-
was approved contrary TO the
good old Fourth Amendment is too
ridiculous to deserve serious consider
alton.
"And yet, these alse-alarmists as
sert that every prohibition agent, in
carrying out this old procedure, has
the Fourth Amendment.
"These search and seizure provi-
sions require exactly what the Fourth
requires, viz:
mo search without a warrant based
upon affidavit showing probable
for believing that the law is be-
.ng violated in a specified place, and
also describing the things to be
"The object of the A. 4. P. A. is to
prevent search and seizure and to per
nit boot|eggers 70 ply their trade en-
,irely untrammeled by officers of the
aW-or 50 it would seem. The object
IF the Federal and State Constitutions
$ to permit search and seizure, but to
INSIST that it be reasonable.
loud outcries about invasion of
he home may, for a time, fool the
lnthinking, but when it is realized
hat no home can be invaded without
proper search warrant, issued in the
cry manner safeguarded by the Con-
,titution, it will soon be G how hol-
ow and purposelv misleading 7
he'll false alarms.
"The State Van Ness Law goes
even further than the Federal Vol
stead Law to protect the home: 1t
proof of actual knowledge
hat the home is being used for, or
n connection with the illicit sale of
liquor. A false affidavit, an improper
search warrant, ~ improper eXecu-
ion Of the warrant can be severely
punished under the law. This is as it
be; but when law violators
the %sacredness of their wn
homes, by using them for unlawful
purposes, unless the arm of the law
an there reach them it is indeed fu-
lie; and any citizen who raises a
clamor in order to protect law
yiclators anywhere, has no claim 70
emitting him to criticise others
Who, under the law, are honestly try
ng to enforce the law.
"a mans house is his castle, but
his distillprv or S~peakeasV..'