The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1931-01-01

federal laws in arresting such offenders than any
private citizen would have For example, the VOL
stead law Section 26 purportS to give any officer or
the law power to seize vehicle unlaWfully trans
porting liquor to arrest the offender, and bring pro-
ceedngs for the forfeiture of the vehicle. The SUI
preme court of the United States in the case or
Gambino V. United States 275 U. S. 80, held that
the expression "any officer of the law as USED IN
this statute referred only to federal officers and did
not include New York state policemen.
The fact is that if the Illinois prohibition law
should be repealed there would be statute giving
any state officer the right to arrest rum-runner
whom he found transporting liquors over the nigh
ways of the state.
Section 1914 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States authorizes certain state magistrates lncud-
ing judges but not police to cause arrests Tor Vlo-
ationS of federal statutes. judge, unless he ar
rests personally must issue warrant before an ar
rest lawfully be made. No police officer can act
under the section except as authorized under Such
q warrant Furthermore, as was recognized clearly
in the opinion of the Massachusetts supreme court
in Goulis v Judge of District Court GAG Mass l. the
Judge is not obliged to act in the case, but may DO so
not as he pleaSeS.
The difference between the situation as it now eX-
lists and it would exist in case the proposed repeal
should be adopted appears Strkngly II one takes the
Of sheriff who finds truck on the road late at
night which he suspects contains load OF liquor
At the present time II he stops the truck ana mas
that it contains liquor he arrests the driver under
the Illinois statute against transportation brings
him into court, proSecutes him and conVictS him,
and the vehicle is forfeited to the state All that he
has to show is that the man transporting
truckload of liquor without any lawful permit. The
plain that the defendant will usually plead
guilty If the Illinois prohibition act were repealed
the officer would be under obligation to act and if
he wished to act would find himself in the following
dilemma: AS has already appeared, he would have
no authority to arrest without warrant. II he
went and got the nearest judge out of bed and OBJ
tanned q warrant, the run-runner would not be
found when he returned and, furthermore, the OF
ficer would have no assurance that the judge would
issue warrant as there is legal obligation on
state Judge to issue warrants under federal statutes
and he may do SO not he pleaSes II the officer
should take the other course stop the truck search
it and find the liquor and turn the runner over
to the federal authorities for prosecution, no con-
victon could be obtained in the federal courts. Ex-
acty such case arose in New York after the state
had repealed its state enforcement law This was The
case Of Cambino V. United States, 275 u S 80 al
States decided that as there was New York law
against transportation the state officers must be
taken to have acted in aid Of the federal officers;
that the state officers had legal right to stop or
search the autombile; that the evidence, therefore,
was unlaWfuly obtained and consequently, the fact
that liquor found could not be shown at the trial
Either course taken by Illinois officer in the
supposed case would, therefore, result in the uti-
mate escape of the rum-runner.
In cases Of manufacture and other offense SINH
lar difficulties would exist AS appears from the
PRINCIPLES already referred to- officers of the state
would be under no legal duty to act against moon
sinners under the federal law and if they wished to
Go So would have no more authority under the fed
eral statutes to make arrests than is possessed by
any private citizen.