Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-05
RUCKER HOLDS
LIQUOR LEGAL
FOR HOME USE
Former Prosecuting Attorney
Asks Judge Pritchard to
Quash Search Warrant.
STATES POWER DENIED

On the theory that there is no power
In a Legislature to assume the authority
to punish an individual for keeping a
small quantity of intoxicating liquor in
his own home for his own personal use,
Attorney Alvah J. Rucker, former prose
cutting attorney Of Marion County, hopes
TO persuade City Judge Walter Pritch-
ard to auash a search warrant, which
after being issued and used by the po-
lise, revealed a bottle containing two
quarts of whisky in the home OF NichO-
las Smith, 1926 North Chester avenue.
Yesterday afternoon Mr.. Rucker, In the
City COcrt, fled a motion asking the
court 10 Quash and set aside the search
warrant which resulted In the discovery
Of a limited supply Of whisky in the
home of Mr.. Smith. The motion was &C
-eompanied by an extensive brif in which
counsel Celebrates upon the theory that
q mans home Is his castle and that the
king cannot enter"
SEES BLOW
AT LIBERTY.
In his brief. Mr. Rucker contends.
"alouId the Act of 1921 be interpreted to
penalize bare possession in ones bona
fde home. it would be clearly uncOnStl-
tutionaI 1t is against common right. the
liberty of citizen, an unwarranped extern
sion of a much abused police power.
We need not and do not herein contend
as 10 the validity Of penalizing bare pas
session outside of the home but We do
SAY that as to the American home, the
holy OF HOLES under our Institutions
from ancient time, such an sbhOrrent
construction Of oppression would be a
subverting Of every dear and sacred
fundamental Of liberty and individual
Ism"
The defense claims that the small guam
tity Of whisky found in his home did
not belong to him but to his mOther-in-
law. who is 50 years Of age, who
uses small quantities OF whisky for med
teal purposes.
ASKS WHEREIN
THE WRONG.
Mr.. Rucker, IN his / rlef, asks: Where
In does the keeping OF 4 small quantity
of Intoxicating liquor in ones own home
for his own personal use invade the rights
of or injure Othersf 1t is Presbyterian.
and also the law Of God, that 4 man can
choose the evil or the better way for
himself. Some may say that If the man
drinks he indirectly hurts others. but
how far will law and poS1ce power go
In futile attempts to save souls? Some
thing must be left to the win power Of
the individual and the uplifting in
huences Of the Christian religion Police
power cannot be stretched either legally
or effectively TO regulate the conscience.
II cannot be said as a matter Of Law
that society is injured by small quaint
ties of liquor kept in the inyiolate home
II would be too remote.
ION the other hand the evils flowing
from such an exercise Of police power
would be colossal The home invaded
and trampled under foot; the sanctuary
itself subject 10 pollution and the hOr-
rors Of the inquisitOn; a nation Of law
breakers created and the law q kissing
aud laughing stock We conclude that
there Is no power in the Legislature to
assume the authority To punish an indivi-
dual for keeping a small quantity OF IN
toxicating liquor in his own home for
his own personal use
ATTACKS VALIDITY
OF WARRANT.
Mr. Rucker then attacked the validity
Of the search warrant on various grounds
one being that Henry Abrams, a local at
tOrney, signed the warrant as a judge pro
tenn, but 9Lr. Rueker claims that the
city court records do not show the sp
poirtment Of Mr.. Abrams as a judge pro
TEN
Mr. Rucker for the first time questions
the interpretations msde of the 1877
amendments to the 1917 prohibition law
He proceeds on the theory that the 1921
smendment does not expressly repeal the
section Of the 1917 act which allows a
small quantity OF intoxicating liquor IN
the home II purchased prior to the en-
forcement Of the act
The court Will pass on the motion on
next Thursday afternoon, Aug. II.