IN U. S. V. SIMMONS , THIS COURT IN ASSAYING
IT'S VIEWS ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS WHEN IT
WROTE, THAT "ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE SURRENDERED IN
ORDER TO ASSERT ANOTHER". UNITED STATES
V. SIMMONS, 390 U. S. 377 (1968) . THE QUESTION,
HERE, ASKS WHETHER THE COURT HASABANDONED THIS THESIS.

DID THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT GET IT RIGHT WHENIT WROTE IN U. S. V. ONE RESIDENCE THAT,
"THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT SEIZE PRIVATEPROPERTY AND COMPEL THE PERSON INWHOSE POSSESSION IN WHOSE POSSESSION ITWAS FOUND TO PROVE LAWFUL POSSESSION?"UNITED STATES V. ONE RESIDENCE ANDATTACHED GARAGE OF ANTHONY J. ACCARDO,603 F.2D 1231 (7TH CIR. 1979). THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
IN THIS CASE SAYS IT CAN. THE QUESTIONTHEN IS, SINCE BOTH COURTS CANNOT BERIGHT, WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG?

Whether the Court has abandoned the principle that 'one constitutional right should not have to be surrendered in order to assert another'