The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-03-20
DISMISS AN OLD
MOONSHINE CASE
Amedia Angelica Can't be
Prosecuted for Moon He
Had in Car.
CAME UP SECOND TIME
AS Car Was Searched without
Warrant, Court Upholds
the Defense.

| Amedio Angelecci is in luck, be-
cause under the state law governing
search and seizure he can't be prose
cuted for possession of Intoxicating
| liquor, even though he admits he had
the stuff and it was his own.
This is the history of the case:
| Amedio's car was stopped and
searched by police officer. Moon
shine was found, He was charged
with unlawful possession. His attor-
ney, Roy s.. Stephenson secured dis
| missaI of the case, quoting a. recent
supreme court decision which finds it
unlawful to search an automobile
or an innocent pedestrian without a
search warrant.
| The case was dismissed.
Then one day Amedio came blust-
ering into the police Office and de-
manded "hisv moonshine.
"Oh, is that your moonshine 2"
asked the sergeant in charge.
He Says4t's His Noon.
eyes, it is" said Amedio. This, the
police thought, was enough. They
charged him again with unlawful
possession of Intoxicating liquor to-
wit, moonshine. @
Again counsel for Amedio came for
ward and quoted the supreme court
decision, and upon this Judge Slater
| handed down an opinion that the
search was illegal and therefor prose-
cution could not be brought even
upon Amedio's own admission that the
stuff was his own.
| The decision is quoted in full:
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Municipal Court-Kenosha County
The State of Wisconsin,
| plaintiff,
versus DECISION.
Amedia Angelica,
defendant.
Defendant Amedia Angelica, was
charged with having, on the 18th day
of May, 1928, transported moonshine
whiskey on public highway by means
of Ford truck. The complaint was
signed and sworn to and warrant is
sued May 18th, and defendant in court
and case was adjourned. Before any
testimony taken defendant filed his
affidavit for return of property taken
and suppression of evidence.
It appears that on May 18th defend
ant was transporting liquor in jugs
by means of said Ford truck; Cyzak
saw defendant on that night unload a
fye-gallon jug at corner of Pearl and
| Southwest Main streets from his truck
and take it to saloon, as the officer
supposed; the officer did not know it
| was moonshine; it was the speed the
defendant was going that attracted his
attention.; the officer followed him in
an auto going thirty miles per hour,
| caught defendant at julius and Con-
gress streets, put him under arrest
and sent for the wagon; the officer
sent defendant in the wagon to the
| station, and ordered another police
| man to take his truck to the station;
the officer had no search warrant; UNI
| til the truck was searched the officer
had no knowledge that it was moon
shine that was in the jugs; the truck
was searched after they got the same
| to the station, and found the five-gal-
! Ion jugs in the truck contained moon
shine. Without search of the truck
it could not be determined whether de-
| PENDANT had jugs of moonshine in the
truck or not Defendant was not pres
ent when the truck was searched and
| the moonshine found.
A recent case decided by our Supreme
court, Hoyer VS.. State, reported in
$50 Wisconsin, page 407, covers and
controls this case. The facts are
somewhat similar. The Court say: In
a prosecution under subdivision 2, sec
| ton 1913, statutes 1921, for unlawfuIly
transporting intoxicating liquor "eyi-
dence consisting of. such intoxicants
taken without search warrant is in
admissible against the defendant as
being in violation of his rights under
section 8, Article l OF the Constitu-
ton, providing that no person shall
be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, and also
hold that the taking of the intoxicat-
! ing liquor from the automobile with
out search warrant was without suf-
fcient warrant in law, and, Wherefore,
unlawful, being in violation Of section
IL, Article l of the Constitution, Sc
curing the right of the people against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Motion of defendant is granted; and
it is ordered that the truck then seiz-
ed, together with the intoxieati
liquor then seized, be returned TO the
defendant.
|. Dated December 31st, 1928.
By the Court:
.--4-t
Municipal Judge.