Wood v. Whitaker

• Decision Date: 03 May 1921
• Citation: 81 Fla. 653,89 So. 118
• Parties: WOOD v. WHITAKER, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

89 So. 118

81 Fla. 653

WOOD v. WHITAKER, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

May 3, 1921

Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. Moreno Jones, Judge.

Application by M. R. Wood for a writ of habeas corpus against H Whitaker, Sheriff of Escambia County. Writ denied and relator brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Eighteenth Amendment extends federal power to intrastate control of intoxicants. The Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution is an innovation in the dual system of government under the Constitution of the United States. It extends the federal power to intrastate control of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and its prohibitions are in the nature of police regulations.

Eighteenth Amendment confers power upon states and Congress to enforce its provisions. In order that its prohibitions may be made effective under any and all conditions that may arise and by one enforcing authority if the other fails, the Eighteenth Amendment expressly confers upon the Congress and the several states 'concurrent power to enforce' its commands by appropriate legislation. This provision confers independent equal, and complete power upon each sovereignty within its jurisdiction and by its own laws to severally enforce all the paramount prohibitions.

Incidental statutory prohibitions must not abridge rights conferred by Congress. While the state may enact and enforce incidental regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors as a means to meke prohibitions of the Eighteenth Amendment effective, yet, as possession is not forbidden, but lawful possession is contemplated by the organic amendment, such incidental statutory prohibitions must not abridge rights conferred by Congress as to such possession, and within the federal power.

State laws in accord with federal laws may be enforced. Where state regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors are in substantial accord with federal laws on the subject, the state laws may be enforced within organic limitations.

Congressional definition of intoxicating liquors controlling. As the express concurrent power of the Congress and the states to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment does not include concurrent power to define the subject-matter of the amendment, the definition of intoxicating liquors enacted by Congress is controlling to make the organic prohibitions effective wherever they are applicable.

Appropriate state laws not excluded or superseded by Eighteenth Amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment being paramount in its provisions, and the power it confers upon Congress and the states to enforce its prohibitions being concurrent--i. e equal and separate power--state laws that are appropriate to enforce the organic prohibitions, are not excluded or superseded by the assertion of the federal power in the premises.

Differences between state and federal penalties do not invalidate state law. Differences between state and federal penalties for legally defined offenses of the same nature do not invalidate the state law, since neither the federal nor the state Constitution controls penalties for offenses committed, no question of due process or equal protection of the laws or of cruel or unusual punishment being involved. A wrongdoer cannot justly complain of the resulting statutory penalty, if it does not violate his organic rights.

More severe punishment by state than by federal power for unlawful act not illegal. While a state prohibition of a property right that is expressly permitted by Congress within the federal power may be invalid, yet a more severe punishment by the state than by the federal power for an unlawful act that either may penalize is not illegal if due process and equal protection of the laws are not denied, and the punishment is not cruel or unusual, in violation of organic rights.

Allegation that defendant unlawfully had intoxicating liquors in possession puts upon him burden of showing lawful possession under statutory exceptions. Under the statute a proper allegation in an information that the defendant unlawfully had intoxicating liquors in his possession puts upon the defendant the burden of showing that his possession is lawful under exceptions contained in the statute.

COUNSEL

Philip D. Beall, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.

Van C. Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The court of record denied relief on habeas corpus from a charge that M. R. Wood, in Escambia county, Fla., on April 18, 1920, 'unlawfully had in his possession, custody, and control alcholic and intoxicating liquors' contrary to the statute, etc., and that at said time and place he 'unlawfully had in his possession five quarts of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the statute,' etc. A writ of error was allowed and duly taken. The judgment was affirmed without opinion. Wood v. Whittaker, Sheriff, 80 Fla. ----, 86 So. 351.

Other similar cases are this day disposed of by opinions, and this opinion is filed to show the propriety of the affirmance of the judgment in this case under various aspects of the law announced in the cases of Hall v. Moran, 89 So. 104, Burrows v. Moran, 89 So. 111, and Johnson v. State, 89 So. 114, this day decided.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution is an innovation in the dual system of government under the Constitution of the United States. It extends the federal power to intrastate control of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and its prohibitions are in the nature of police regulations. Being the paramount law in the premises, it restrains the operation of all other provisions of the federal Constitution upon the subject-matter so far only as such other organic provisions are inconsistent with the latest amendment. It renders inoperative all state laws, organic or statutory, that are in conflict with its provisions. It prohibits the manufacture of and traffic in intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, though it does not forbid the possession and lawful use of such liquors. It contemplates the possession and lawful use of such liquors legally acquired before the amendment became effective. In order that its prohibitions may be made effective under any and all conditions that may arise and by one enforcing authority if the other fails, the amendment expressly confers upon the Congress and the several states 'concurrent power to enforce' its commands by appropriate legislation. This provision confers independent, equal, and complete power upon each sovereignty within its jurisdiction and by its own laws to severally enforce all the paramount prohibitions. Burrows v. Moran, 89 So. 111, this day decided.

The amendment contemplates its universal enforcement from its effective date; therefore existing state laws that are appropriate may be used for that purpose.

While the state may enact and enforce regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors as a means to make the organic prohibitions effective (see Baender v Barnett, 255 U.S. 224, 41 S.Ct. 271, 65 L.Ed. 597, February 28, 1921), yet, as possession is not forbidden, but contemplated, by the amendment, such incidental statutory prohibitions must not abridge rights conferred by Congress as to such possession and within the federal power. Where state regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors are in substantial accord with federal laws on the subject, the state laws may be enforced within organic limitations. While the acts of Congress are not dominant where the state has express concurrent power, the state power is concurrent only as commanded by the Eighteenth Amendment. See Erie R. Co. v. People of New York, 233 U.S. 671, 34 S.Ct. 756,...