The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-04-01
A Plain Guide

Certainly the prosecuting officer who said that
it is impossible to enforce the liquor laws unless
search warrants are obtained on gossip and hearsay
was mistaken.
Even more certain is it that the judge who ruled
that something more than gossip should furnish tne
basis of such searches is to be commended 1or MS
knowledge of the Constitution and his regard Tor IT,
If there be one right which is deeply written
info the Constitution Of the Nation and the State, it
is the sacredness of the home from unwarranted
entry.
"Tne right of the people to be secure IN their per
sons. houses, papers and effects, against unreason-
able search or seizure shall not be violated; and no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause sup
ported by oath or affirmation, and particularly oe-
scribing the place to be searched and the person or
thing to be seized"
These are the words Of the Constitution OF the
United States.
Here is a plain guide and upon it the protection
OF every home against tyrannies of officials, against
interference bv the powerful, against intrusion by the
spiteful and the ~vengeful, has rested for more than a
century and a half.
The same language is written into the Constitu-
ton of the State of Indiana, in the first chapter OF
the bargain it made when it asked admission to the
Union.
In this particular case, a policeman was. told by
a neighbor that he believed the house contained
liquor.
The affidavit under which the search was made
held the signature of the policeman, not the man
who gave the information.
The only cause the policeman had to believe that
there was any liquor in the place was this whispered
word admittedly based on other whispers.
Some one might have seen a mysterious pack
age being carried into the home at night.
Some one might have thought he saw a package
of familiar size being delivered at a back door.
Certainly it could be no hardship to demand that
the man, who whispered to the policeman, go be-
fore a Judge and tell exactly why he believed the
house to be searched contained illegal liquor.
If gossip and hearsay are to be the basis OF
search warrants then the door is opened to torrents
Of venom and responsibility.
A story starts within a block. Some one has
heard that the Smiths or the Joneses have a bottle
Of booze. 1t is whispered over a back yard fence.
When retold, it gains in size and is parleyed into
a case. Before a week, such is the malignant
nature of gossip, every one in the block will be sure
that the Smiths or Joneses are running a bootleg
joint.
If hearsay evidence be strong enough to secure
the search of any home, if gossip be our protection
against crime, then we must throw away the Con-
stitution and revise our whole scheme of justice.
Instead of calling witnesses to the stand when
life or liberty is at stake, we should call in the neigh
borhood gossips and convict or acquit upon what
they have heard or imagined, instead Of relying upon
the facts told by those who know them.
That bill of rights has been powerful through a
century and a half. 1t has stood between liberty and
tyranny. 1t has been the final refuge of the free.
Are we ready to abandon it now and say that
any home can be searched at the behest Of the
yengeful, the envious or the malignant?
Are we ready to tear down the Statue of Liberty
and replace that goddess with a replica Of Mother
Grundy?