The New York herald., 1922-12-20
The Fourth Amendment.
Safeguards That Take Its Place in
the State Of New York.

To TIE NEW YORK HERALD: In your
editorial article of December 1S on
That Fourth Amendment" you call at
tention to a recent decision of the United
States Supreme Court in O bootlegging
case and suggest that there is no eauiva-
lent OF the Fourth Amendment in the
Constitution of the State, Of New York.
and that prohibition enforcement off,
GERS are not .hampered by any Of the
limitations involved under the Consti-
tuition OF the United States.
II Is true, Of course, that there is not.
in direct language. such q eimitation as
that contained In the Fourth Amend
ment. but l am not at all sure that the
Limitation is not there in spirit, though
we are called upon to find it In several
provisions. The important part Of the
amendment is that "the right of the
people to be secure in their persons,
houses. papers and effects. against un-
rea asonablo searches and. seizures, shall
not be violated" This was thc'rulc Of
the common law, which in no far as it
has not been abrogated by positive law
is the law Of the state Of New York.
tscction, 1s. Article l., State Constitu-
toni "Thc poorest man may" says
Chatham in his speech on general war
rants. "in his cottage. bid defiance to
all the forces of the Crown. II may be
frail its roof may shake; the wind
may blow through It; the storm may en-
ter the rain may enter but the King
OF England may not enter; all his
forces dare not cross the threshold of the
ruined tenement" In other words. the
maxim OF the common law that every
mans house is his CASTLE is made a
Part OF our constitutional law In the
clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches
and seizurcs (Coolcys Constitutional
Limitations. sixth edition, S64) and In a
note (page 3T0) the same great author
SAYS: "The Fourth Amendment TO the
Constitution OF thc>United States, found
also In many State Constitutions. would
clearly preclude tho seizure OF ones
papers In order to obtain evidence
against him: and the spirit OF the
Fifth Amcndment--that no person shall
Ebe compelled In criminal case to give
ovidehce against himself--would also
forbid such seizure"
Tufriiug tfien to the sixth section OF
Article I. OF the State Constitution we
find the provision that mo rerson shall
be subject to be twice put in jeopardy
for the same offcnse; nor shall he be
compelled In any criminal case TO be a
witness against himself nor be de-
rrlvcd OF life. liberty or property with
out due process OF law" This is, In so
rar as the question here considered Is
involved, the exact equivalent of the
Fifth Amendinent--almost its exact
Ianguage--and II Judge Cooley is right.
then our state Constitution does al
least forbid the seizure OF ones papers
for the purpose OF using them as evil
dence against n suspect. (See Boyd
vs.. United States. lie y. s.. 616. 6s0.)
In the case cited the court says that
'any forcible and compulsory extortion
OF a mans own testimony or OF his
private papers 20 be used as evidence
TO convict him of crime or to forfeit his
goods Is within the condemnation Of
that ILord Camden'sl Judgment. In
this regard the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments run almost into each
other" In the same case. at page S34.
the court s,olds that suits for peraitios
and forfeitsres are within the reason
Of criminal proceedings for all the pur-
poses of tho Fourth Amendment OF
the Constitution, and OF that portion