, 1924-10-01

Those six paragraphs contain the
high spots of a decision handed
down by Judge James H. Burgess
in district court Thursday, in over
ruling motions to supress the evil
dence and for the return of liquors
automobiles, and other property
taken in the cases of the state of
Wyoming VS.. Joe Hardesty, Eugene
Benedicty, Paul Moskala, John
Wantuluk and A. L. Dorrenbacher.
A portion of the motion of Moskala
to suppress the evidence was sus-
tanned. but the evidence was order
ed destroyed and not returned to
the owner.
The decisions on these motions,
because they involve the right Of
arrest and search and seizure
without a warrant, are among the
most sweeping that have been
handed down by a state court IN
Wyoming for some time. The
Sense If smell" decision is be-
lieved to be the first ever passed
upon by a state court in this state.
Motions in the cases were pre-
sented and argued at the beginning
of the June term of court before
Judge Burgess. The state was rep
resented by John w. Songer,
county attorney, and Carl l.. Sac
kett. special counsel appointed by
Judge Burgess, while the defend
ants were ~variouosly represented
by r. E. McNally, H. Glenn Kin
sley and l.. j. OMAR.
No decision in recent years here
has caused such a wide and varied
comment. a storm of criticism on
one hand and expression of praise
on the other have been heard since
the ruling was handed down.
The criticisms came from persons
who declared that their personal
>fiberty was being infringed upon
and that the decision gave officers
too much temptation. Proponents
of the ruling declared that it was
a step forward toward actual en-
forcement of the prohibition law.
The arrest of Joe Hardesty ard
Eugene Benedicty was made at the
same time by Gerald A. Braucht,
deputy sheriff, without a warrant
in his possession although war
rants for both of these men had
been issued to Sheriff George Lord,
who was a c~onsiderabl distance away
at the time of the arrest. The mo-
ton in the Hardesty case raised the
question as to whether Braucht had
in fact made an arrest and as to
whether he had any right to arrest
without a warrant or to search the
persons of either %Benedicty or Har-
desty, or the a without a warrant,
as he had no search warrant for
the automobile.
Hardesty, on the day of his ar
rest, was observed to go to the
home of Benedicty at Big Horn in
a Dodge touring a bearing a
license belonging to Benedicty. The
a~ffidavits of the officers show that
they had observed Benedicty using
a Ford bearing a license number
issued to Hardesty, yet the records
show that both licenses were issued
for the Dodge and hat Benedicty
was the owner of that a
Braucht. although he did not
iidNt INC Nalldil' llltl Ctptth Idih
esty and ~Benedicty as they We're
leaving Benedicty's house in the
Dodge and placed them under ar
rest, and the affidavits state that he
then searched Hardesty and found
some liquor in his possession and
then searched and found ONE liquor
in the pocket of the car. He con-
fscated the car.
Braucht, who was with two other
men, proceeded to B~enedfcty's
house where he met Sheriff Lord.
They searched the house and a still
and considerable moonshine whiskey
were seized, according to the aft
davit. B%enedicty's motion declared
that the warrant was defective,
while the state claimed that NJ
search warrant was necessary, as
the officers had affidavits showing
that a state officer cooperating with
them had seen the liquor and had
made a purchase.
In ruling upon the Hardesty case,
Judge Burgess said that "the arrest