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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I IN U. S. V. SIMMONS, THIS COURT IN ASSAYING IT’S VIEWS ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS WHEN IT WROTE, THAT “ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SHOULD 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 HAS ABANDONED THIS THESIS. II DID THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT GET IT RIGHT WHEN IT WROTE IN U. S. V. ONE RESIDENCE THAT, “THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND COMPEL THE PERSON IN WHOSE POSSESSION IN WHOSE POSSESSION IT WAS FOUND TO PROVE LAWFUL POSSESSION?” UNITED STATES V. ONE RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED GARAGE OF ANTHONY J. ACCARDO, 603 F.2D 1231(7TH CIR. 1979). THESIXTH CIRCUIT IN THIS CASE SAYS IT CAN. THE QUESTION THEN IS, SINCE BOTH COURTS CANNOT BE RIGHT, WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG? ii STATEMENT OF