Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-08-28

conviction. This is our way OF teach
ing people like Flavius to behave, and
of teaching people like Titus to behave,
and incidentally of securing respect for
the constitution Our way of uphold
ing the constitution IL no. TO strike at
the man W'-o breaks il. but tn let oil
somebody else who broke something
else"
Now what is it that the Assistant
Attorney General discloses about the
awfulness of violating the sacredness
of the home with it's little still in the
nursery9 IT Is that Congress was so
Jealous of protecting the home from
unreasonable entry and search" that
the penalty for an officers following
any scent TIT leads TO such a still. even
If he finds it and a carload OF home
brew" is that he is subject to $1,000
fine and Imprisonment. That ohense
is worse than running the still and
feeding the baby on the mash, when
measured by the penalty OF the law.
x *
No such protection from invasion
with search warrant, applies to any
other place than the home of the boot
logger; it does not apply to business
place or storehouse. The home Is
different. except as Mrs. willebrandt
says. in extending her definitions
when il is distillery masqueradins as
a home But she declines TO answer
As to where lies the exact dividing line
between a distillery and real nome.
That is for the court to decide. ana
any one who cuc~s wrong. IN advance
of the court. Ii fit for "treasons STRAIT
aeems and spoIls,' and subject to a
~
it il wiseSt not to take chances IN
guess.
The Vostead law contains this pro-
vision,
No search warrant shall issue 10
search any private dwelling occupied
as such. unless it is being used for the
unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. or
unless it is in part used for some bust
ness purpose. such as store, shop.
saloon. restaurant hotel or boarding
house The term private dwelling
shall be construed to include the room
or rooms used and occupied. not
transientlv, but solely as a residence. In
an apartment house, hotel or boarding
house"
1t will be borne in mind that all this
prohibition of ses-eh warrants as o
private dwellings has no reference 70
iustifying the Illegal manufacture OF
liquor in such dwellings, nor TO the
possession of such therein. but applies
merely to forcible entry and the lssu-
ance of search warrants, unless there
is information and belief OF actual
sales therein. In case OF sale 10 an
officer or other witness, then search
warrant may be issued and the still
nd R0nfSNafNG
and sold by order of the court.
How strange and abnormal would b.
any Interpretation of law without en-
ceptions!" So here is an exception IN
all the foregoing: In Cornelius "Searcn
and Seizure" 1895, par. 81, page 2SS'
is this
When odor of intoxicating liquor or
mash SUFFICIENT TO constitute probable
cause. Where an officer alleges that
he is familiar with the odor OF WHISKY
or mash. and that he detected the odo'
Of such mash or whisky on certain
premises at certain designated time.
it has been held that this is sufficient
To constitute probable cause for the
issue OF a warrant. if the officer was
not guilty of trespasSing at the time
he detected the odor OF WHISKY or
mash Thus, in one case, certain ON
GERS went TO a farmhouse. ana. oelng
familiar with the smell of mash ami
moonshine whisky. detected the odor
thereof, emanatiug from certain prem
Uses; the officers having made two or
three visits, on two occasions haVinG
detected the odor from the highway.
and on one occasion having gone 10
the side Of the house and having rap
NJ hn n aHfnlrf2nFF
The officer secured a warrant issued ON
an AFFIDAVIT on which he stated
And that then and there could
smell the odor of mash and moonSiline
whisky coming from said buildings or
some of them; that mash Is coucoc-
ton out of which moonShine whisky
an intoxicating beverage, so called, Is
that / am familiar with
the smell of mash having Smelled con
siderable quantities of it, and that what
smelled as alleged aforesaid, was
mash and moonshine whisky,
The court held that this was sum
cient to warrant the issuance OF q
search warrant and a search there
under was held 10 be legal, People
VS. FlaczinSSi 2s3 Mich, $50, 1914 N. w,
$685.
As all liquor. Including that which
contains less than one-hatg Of | per
cent Of alcohol. is subject 10 revenue
tax, all revenue officers are authorized
to enter wherever IL is made or pos
SeSSed. In inspect and tax II, Pro.
hibition officerS may be guided by rev.
emile officers, at times. II the sense
OF smell be acute, sometimes evidence
equal To- that in the case of FlacainSkl
may procure search warrant, even as
To home For another example, ON
GERS were upon certain premises law
fully, and while there saw light IN
4 cellar two or three doors away, aud
detected the odor OF cooking. raiSinS
The court, IN passing on whether or
not the edor Of cooking raiSinS WAS
to warrant an arrest without
a warrant, and to Sei2e the evidence,
stated,
III an oftiCer may arrest when ne
actually sees the eom:iiSSion az mis-
iemeanor or felony why may he not 6o
The same thing II the sense nf smell
Informs him that a crime Is being cont
nittede Sight Is but one OF the senses
and an oificer may be SO trained that
-he sense of smell Is as unerring as
i've sense OF sight, see no
reason why the power TO arrest may not
sNlSt II the act of commission appealed
10 the sense Of smell as well as to that
II sight"
Commonwealth VS. DiehoId. 2ns XIV.
us. 40 3, w, T0S To the same effect
= Mcbride VS., United States, aa4 Fed.
'ta, II, :. vs., Apple, ! Fed adl, A9S,
-