, 1921-10-03
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

SEAkChES AND SEIZURES.
With the present activity Of federal enforcing Off
cers and \ promise of still greater activity on the part
Of Commissioner Haynes and his recognized force
there is no more pertinent subject than that Of the
liquor wrongfully in his possession A writer in the
New York Tribune has covered the situation inteIli-
gently and eonelusively.
I The exact reading of the fourth amendment to the
Constitution may not be familiar TO many. It reads:
The right Of the people to be secure in their per-
sons, houses. papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, sup
ported by oath or affirmation and particularly describ-
ing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized"
The writer continues: 'This constitutional amend
ment, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures,
implicitly recognizes the general power Of congress 70
enact laws defining what searches and seizures with
out warrant it deems to be reasonable. Common
wealth vs.. Watts, 81 KY, 5S7, 2 S. W. 1881 It fur
thermore implies that there may be some searches and
seizures without warrant which are reasonable.
yet a great deal has been said about the Stanley
amendment to the amended volstead act, now before
the senate, as II it were NEEDED in order to prevent the
violation of the Fourth amendment
But there is probably not a member Of the United
States senate even Senator Stanley himself, who
would vote now for the Stanlcy-volstead amendment
just as it unanimously passed the senate. It was too
hastily drawn and is too sweeping. It would repeal
at least twenty or twenty-five sections of the United
States statutes. For the Stanley amendment provides
that any officer of the United States engaged in the
enforcement of any law Of the United States who
searches without warrant the property or premises Of
any person shall be punished. This would repeal at
least twenty or twenty-five sections Of the United
States statutes, such as permit our customs officers
without warrant to search the persons and baggage
Of persons coming into the United States suspected Of
smuggling unlawful goods, and which permit internal
revenue officers, postal officers and those in the In
dian service to make certain searches and seizures
which congress has by act declared to be reasonable.
For instance, Section 3,453 of United States Re
vised Statutes provides that a revenue officer may,
without warrant, search and seize the goods and wares
Of citizens who it is supposed are trying to evade the
payment of a government tax.
Both sides have referred to Boyd vs.. United States
116, United States sic, in which the court said that
a law was contrary to the Fourth amendment Of the
United States Constitution which provided that II a
subpoena to bring in his books and papers were served
upon q person and he failed to do so the allegations
made in a complaint against him should be taken as
confessed. But'the decision on page e23 says:
THE search for and seizure of stolen, forfeited
goods, or goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid
payment therefor are totally different things from a
search for and seizure Of a mans private books and
papers for the purpose of obtaining information there
in contained, or of using them Ms evidence against
him. The two things differ toto coelo. In the one
case the government is entitled to the possession of
the property; in the other it is not. The seizure Of
stolen goods is authorized by the common law, and
the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach Of the rev.
enue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable
on. them, has been authorized by English statutes for
at least two centuries past, and the like seizures have
been authorized by our own revenue acts from the
commencement of the government.
" The first statute passed by congress to regulate
the collection of duties, the act Of July 81, 1889, 1
Stat at L. 43, contains provisions to this effect. As
1870 - 80 ~ NC baiAC WhiIu pIo-
posed for adoption the original amendments to the
Constitution, it is clear that the members Of that body
did not regard searches and seizures Of this kind are
unreasonable and they are not embraced within the
prohibition Of the amendment. So also the super
vision authorized to be exercised by officers Of the
revenue over the manufacture or custody of excisable
articles and the entries thereof in books required by
law to be kept for their inspection are necessarily ex-
cepted out Of the category of unreasonable searches
and seizures. So also the laws which provide for the
search and seizure of articles and things which 1t is
unlawful for a person to have in his possession for the
purpose of issue or disposition, such as counterfeit
coin, lottery tickets, implements Of gambling, etc, are
not within this category. Commonwealth VS.. Dana,
2 Net $780,
''The opponents OF prohibition, who are more anx-
ious to make it hard to catch and punish bootleggers
that to protect the people from illegal liquor traffic,
contend that a search for liquor on a person or an
automobile is for the purpose of convcting him of a
crime and, therefore, is the same thing as searching
his private books and papers for information to use
as evidence against him. But the courts seem to, have
held otherwise, and common sense in this respect up
holds the courts. Good citizens will be loyal to the
whole Constitution of our beloved land"