Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-03-01
MUST HAVE WARRANT
Continued from PAGE /

The evidences showed that n police
officer saw Derrickson get off a street
car carrying n grip which he subse-
ouently placed on his shoulder. The
actions of DerrickBon excited the sus-
pioion of the officer and he followed
him. ON seeing that he was being fol-
lowed DerriCkson started TO run, en-
tered the barber shop of the defendant
Gillespie. closed the door and locked 1t.
The officer was Joined by others, and
they finally obtained entrance to
room apparently occupied by Gillespie
az a bedroom or sitting room There
they found Dcrriclson in possession
of n grip containing several quarts of
alcoholic liquors. and also found
demtjohn containing more than one
quart of liquor. They Immediately ar-
rested both DerriCkson and Gillespie.
II. appeared from the evidence that
there was no warrant issued for the
arrest OF these mon. nor warrant for
tho search of the premises. There was
nothing TO Indicate what crime, If any.
the officer suspected Dcrrickaon hnd
committed, and there was nothing TO
Indicate that tho officers when they en-
tered the place had any thought that
there was moro liquor In the house
than the law allows. 1t was shown that
the officers did not know Gillespie was
IN the house until they entered tho
room.
Must Have GogniZance OF Crime.
The court held that police officer
Of Wilmington is rcaco officer and
II is his duty to arrest any person
with or without "A warrant who violates
the law in his presence The right of
hssn "A
! crime IL committed IN his presence is
| based on tho knowledge on hia part
! That tho crime - being committed in
| other words. that hc srcs the crime com
| uIttcd. IIc ,puId not Ia this instance
/ Soc and could not thrr,rnro know that
/ a crime was h,iuE committed. " the
/ de r,.utl,ut lad b,cu ARRIVING tho int"N-
/ icating liquor in tho open go that u
ctrlId be seen hy the officer. the question
/ would be cntiroly different
III ann satisfied. therefore, enid Judge
| HASTINGS. "tiat no crime was commit
ted in view &c tho officer within the
meaning of the statute. that the entry
of tn, officers into tho house WAS nu-
| laVtui. tho arrest ~ the defendants WINS
uuIawruI. tho seizure of the grip. bot
ties. dcmiIohn ana spirituous liQuors
was unlawful. IN reaching this com
4 ttusion / have mot over looked the iutf
that an officer haviuE seen Grim" COM
1 nuti.d NAV pjtt.ur tho criminal unit
~ Is ,auEht neither havc I ov.Ilo"N",
fhe tuI. that au officer armed with 2
warrant may cutor a defcudants dwej
ling house for tn" purpose ot arr"stint
him.
The main question was on the aduiia
sihNitv or evidence. ara tine Judge hel,
that if tt is proper e. exclude thiH evt
dcn,e for thc roaaon that 81 was Oh
taiped urIpwfully. tho defeudante hR'
tho right u have Il excluded 1T a pre
uniuaIN hearing "If Il IA not propn
evidence before tho court of Gcnora
Sessions. it IL not proper evidence p"
t,re 4 committing magistrate. sai
Judge Hastings
An orlrr MAS nad" for the retut1
Is the petitioner of the Erip i.rEaU
e,iz,d bot the r.tarn ~ the aleuho.i
Hau,r waa dcuiod This rcfHaa, dr.
not ia any way afIc,t th, '3eht .f th
d.fcndattt tu have excluded ans cNi
Il, nee ii guilt unlavfuly obtained