Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1922-05-16
ARGUE QUESTION
OF rum SEIZURE.
Judges Hear Attack on
States Right to Hold
Liquor Evidence
QUESTION VALIDITY
OF JOHN DOE" WRIT

Before Chief Justice Pennewill
and Judges Rice. Rodney and Rich
ards. in the Court Of General SEES
sions today argument was made on
the questions Of legality OF arrests
and the seizure OF spurious liquor
without search warrants having been
issued.
Philip L. Garrett cited the case OF
/ Leon Gulc2ynski who was stopped
/ by a police officer without a search
warrant on East Fourth street, adj
mitted he had liquor in his posses
sion and was arrested. and the case
of Wassel Chuchola, whose restau-
rant in South Wilmington was raid
Ell by police officers who had a
search warrant. In the latter case
Mr. Garrett contended the search
warrant was defective and said the
stt0rney-general's department so ad
mitted. Mr.. Garrett stated the war
rant in the latter case was Issued
against John Doe" and he held
that % was defective because II did
not properly locate or describe the
premises and he argued that the pO-
lice acted improperly because they
did not arrest all the persons in the
place. Mr.. Garrett presented copies
OF the testimony in both cases, which
were heard by Judge Rodney in Feb
ruary He requested the court 10
order in such cases that the liquor
be returned or destroyed. so that it
may not be used as evidence. and
also asked that search Of private
residences be prohibited unless
liquor stored therein is TO be sold,
George w. Lilley submitted and
commented on many legal authori-
ties in support Of the contentious
urged by Mr.. Garrett.
Deputy Attorney General Souther-
land contended that when a defend
ant attempts TO recover. from the
state more than one quart Of liquor
held as evidence. he is by his own
statement a yiolator of the law.
Referring to cases cited by Mr..
Garrett. and Mr.. Lilly, Deputy At
tornsy- Finger said that
there was no law in any Of those
cases which madeline possession Of
the evidence sought an offense. Mere
possession Of liquor under the Fed
eral law Is not an 0ffense, he re-
but is an offense in Della
ware. In all those cases the de-
PENDANTS were entitled to and had
right to the possession OF the goods
held as evidence, and in those cases
the court had right to protect the
defendants. Mr.. Finger did not be-
lieve that a court would give pro-
lection to q man when possession Of
the sought-for evidence is a viola
ton Of law.
In respect to what constitutes ar
rest, which question was raised by
Mr.. Garrett in the GulczinslSi case,
Mr. Finger argued that there must
he some restraint to make an arrest.
Gulczynski was merely stopped TO be
questioned and was held under no
restraint, he maintained.
Mr.. Finger, in regard 10 the
swearing out OF warrants, maintain
ed that Mr. CARROTS argument
that man must be prosecuted in
The charge set forth in the warrant
and on no other charge which the
arrest might disclose. was unsound
Ayres J. Stockley and J. Paul
ireen presented argument in sup
'ort Of the petitions for the return
# liquor held as evidence along the |
anne lines presented by Mr. Gar- !
eft and Mr.. Lilley. The court re-
erved decision.