San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-10-26
SAYS SEARCH
BY, RANGERS
WAS ILLEGAL
Declares Home Entered
and Searched Despite
Protests.
EVADING THE LA W
Though Search Might Be
Illegal Courts May Ac-
cept Evidence.
EVADING THE LA W

mat rangers entered MS nome WIFI
out search warrant and searched the
place over his protest is charged by
Sebastin n. Gonshor. 32l7 West
Travis street, who declared rangers
told him rangers don't need search
warrant
Gonshor's place was searched Thurs
day and a quantity of liquor taken.
He was later arraigned before the
United States commissioner.
Following Gonshor's statement an
investigation was started which dis
closed that rangers are making search
without warrant, and are turning the
evidence so obtained over to feder-
al officer who files the complaint. In
this manner, it is held, they evade
the provision of the constitution which
promises that a mans home shall be
safe from search without warrant.
Can't Inquire Into Acts.
This is possible through holding OF
the Supreme Court that when a state
officer turns evidence over TO a fed
eral officer the federal court may not
inquire into how the evidence was OBJ
tanned.
Therefore, 1t is claimed that evil
dence secured by illegal search of a
residence by state officers, cannot be
thrown out of federal court since "the
Fourth Amendment was intended as a
restraint upon the federal government
officers according to an opinion Civ
en- BY the Ninth Circuit Court of APP
peals in the case of McGrew ct al,
VS.. the United States.
Although the federal and state con-
stitution forbid illegal search and
seizure, the effect such unlawful
search and seizure would normally
have upon evidence introduced in the
trial Of n case is avoided by the
rangers in filing charges in the fed
eral courts.
Federal Officers Not Concerned.
"The entire situation resolves itself
into this" federal official explained
Friday morning. IF a prohibition
agent makes an illegal search him
self or accompanies officers making
an illegal search, then evidence Sc
cured could be barred from presenta-
ton to a jury. However, if the state
officers independently make such an
illegal search and turns the evidence
over to federal officers, then the evil
dence would be admissible since the
federal government acquired the evil
dence in n legal manner.
"In other words. the only part that
government agents play in n case OF
this nature is to receive the evidence
from the rangers. They are not con-
cerned with the manner in which the
evidence has been secured by officers
over whom they have no CONTROL
Search on information"
From statements made before Unit
ed States Commissioner Edwards by
rangers, it is indicated that the off
GERS are searching private residences
merely upon information.
In the statements made under oath
by Rangers II. A. Boyd and j.. y.
Gillon. in the case against Gonshor,
they testified as follows:
"On October 81. 1928. having in
formation that defendant was hand
ling whiskey at 32l7 West Travis
street, San Antonio, Texas. we went
there and in the rear room found eight
quarts, twelve pints of whiskey in
clothes closet. In the attic we found
10-gallon key full of whiskey and
about eight gallons of whiskey in an
other 10-gallon keg. Scattered about
over the place we found is empty
gallon jugs and two and one-ha'f
quart bottles, 16 dozen empty pint
bottles. He admitted that all Of said
property was his"
In n case made upon the preceding
day it was admitted that n search of
another place was made when the Of
ficers had information" In this in
stance, three pints of liquor were
found IN a bath tub.
What The Courts Held.
The status of cases of this naturS
is clearly outlined in the following
decision in the well-known McGrew
case:
"As clearly pointed out by the court
i'm the cases referred to. (Supreme
tourt decisions) the Fourth Amend
ment was intended as a restraint up
on the federal government and its
agencies. and not directed to individ-
uai conduct of state officers. and the
Fifth amendment was intended TO
protect citizens from compulsory testi-
mony against himself. In the present
case no officer of the government had
anything to do with the seizure of
the property in question. or any
knowledge thereof so far as the record
discloses. until after il had been
taken from the defendant and was in
the possession of the sheriff. Assum-
ing, therefore. but not deciding that
the arrest and seizure by the sheriff
was illegal. there was no invasion by
a government officer or Nv its "or-
ity Of the security afforded by the
Fourth Amendment. as whatever was
done : that Of state officer"
In the case Of Weeks vs.. the
United States, the supreme -lnrt
LrI.-a -A -nroA