# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Crim v. Indiana > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0482%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 990 ## Text : IN THE chi ee tay 4 > eX Supreme Court of the Unitas OcroBer Ter, Me JOHN. C. CRIM, a/k/a BOB MILLER, . ; Petitioner, ; e “TS, i ° THE SPATE OF INDIANA, | , : = 5 RS -. BRespondrit: . PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ai THE — SUPREME COURT. OF INDIANA. ”° Myron J. Hack; 609 Odd Fellows Building, South Bend, Indiana 46601, “* Counsel for Petitioner, THE GUNTHOR EN PRINTING C %, CHICAGO . . * . . ad . . « e . : , . x \ s \- ~ ——- Te | . \ \ °: Fae . ° > - . E a * . . ea > =, Nieseemor te TABLE OF CONTENTS. ae ; | es on os : PAGE I. Opinion Below ........ RON The oe a) eons ce ‘ IL. Jurisdictiénal Statement ....... ious een III. Question Presented for Review... oo ise 2 IV. :-Constitutional Provisions Involved cM aerane ek ok } V.. ‘A. Concise Statement of ‘the Case C ontaining ; Facts Material to ‘the on Presented for Review e. —~ . VEE Reasons Relied nae hes ‘Allowance of the Writ 12 * _ MIS ak he eee tes eS ae ue | .) caer TABLE OF AvtHoritigs. : ° Cases. a oa Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U. S. 132...... .16, is Chambers v. Maroney (1970), 399 U. S. 42. .12, 14, 15, 16,17 Chimel v. California (1964), 376 U. S. 364...... Ne 12 | - Coolidge v. New Hampshire _— 401 a S. 2.4 $l » SS. Ct. 2022... Sepa LG RAH VeRKE AMO po Awa ees :. 4g ii v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 58e.......... 17 \ Ker - California (1963), 374 U. 8.23. .0000...00000.. ~~ | Mapp v- Ohio (1961), 367 U. S: 643 ee AE ESP ae we Ee Preston v. United States (1964), 376 U.S. 364. £12, 13, 17 Wolf vV. Colorado ite 338 U.S. 25 Pee pe, ieee 12 Statute. Title 28, United States Code, Seetion 1257(3). fe ‘se | ii: o: ; © Constitution. Fourth and Mourteanth Amendments to the Constitu- tion of the usted -Gtates:......5.1052.--3 aces. ae Rules. 3 — # Ryles 19(a) and 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.......00.0.002.. Be Ae aad 2, 11 — a if ee at a 3 Page 4 JS an Supreme Court of the United States ie OcTOBER TERM, 1971. No. 3 JOUN: C. CRIM, a/k/a BOB MIL LER, | . See Pe ttaitioncr, vs. . THE STATE OF INDIANA, va ~ Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. ae ee We To the Honorable the Supren me » Court of the: United States: | . Your Pogue: dala «. Crim, respectfully prays thet a writ of certiorari issue to review and reverse thé judg- “-ment of the Supreme Court’ of Indiana, entered in this cause on August 12, 1971, as to which a timely- filed Peti-— tion for Rehearing was denied on October 29, 1971. | In suppart of ° his petition, | ‘Petitioner _Tepresénts : as - follows: : L | OPINION BELOW. © © —*_ ‘The opinion of the Supreme Court of Indiana’ is un- ge ally reported in the National Reporter System at 2 . KE. 2d 85. It is not yet officially reported. oe _ @ -— Peterson vy. State (1968), 250 Ind, 269, 224 N._K. Yd 448; an ee Jackson». State (1967). zis Ind. 579, 226 N. BE. Yd 2; , wo a Adams v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 472, 69 N. I. 2d o Jupementr Arriem en, Arrensern, ©. J. and Givas, DeBruten and Hester, JJ. Coneur. . - * A4 In THE Supreme Court or Inpiana, Joun C. Crim, a/k/a Bos Munurr, ) ~Defendant-Appellant, vs. oe ae No. 369 S 42 *» Sratk oF Lypiana, Plaintiff-A ppellee. “APPEAL PROM THE-STARKE CIRCUIT COURT, Honorable Marvin. D. McLaucuuin, Judge. PETITION FOR REHEARING. Defendant-Appellant would respeetfully show to the Court: - : 1. That he was’ convicted of the crime of theft in the Starke Circuit Court on September 25, 1968. That there- after he prayed an appeal to this Court, which ‘affirmed the Judgment of conviction on August 12, 1971. That pending said ‘appeal deféndant-appellant has been at liberty on bond. ; | oe 2. That by reason thereof this Court has jurisdiction to ‘consider defendant-appellant’s Petition for Rehearing. 3. Defendant-appellant asserts that the opinion above referred to contravenes Article 7, § 5, of the Indiana Con- ~~ stitution in the following particulars: — A. That the opinion of this Court fails to give a state- ei ment int writing of a substantial question arising on the record, in particular, the facts surrounding petitioner’s arrest in Fulton County by the Sheriff _ of Kosciusko County for a misdemeanor observed by said Sheriff committed in Fulton County. Evi- dence of this fact was given by the Sheriff of ' Kosciusko, County, which appears at, Tr. pp. 91- D B. & . “opinion that it supported a valid arrest and search mn the interest of conserving time and effort we’ will not here relate it’’. That such fact was the AD. 139 (defendant-appellant’s Appeal Brief pp. 4-5). This Court stated on this question, ‘*We have reviewed the evidence adduced at\the hearing on the motion to suppress, and while we are of the ze basis for petitioner’s motion to suppress and reject evidence, the overruling of which was the main hasis of petitioner’s appeal, The opinion of the Court fails to diseuss the authority of a ‘County Sheriff to nmke ; an arrest without a warrant based on the facts as revealed in the ree ord as alleged in the foregoing paragraph. The authority of a County Sheriff to make an arrest .without warrant, thus,.establishing a firm guideline from the Bar and the Courts to follow, ‘The opinion of this ( ‘ourt fails to disenss the legal the arrest. to’ inform: defendant-appellant the reason therefore, which failure by the arresting officer contravenes a ruling precedent of. this Court. (Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N, E- 968 (1893). 4. The’ opinion of .this Court. in stating, ‘‘ Evidence sought to be suppressed, therefore, was merely cumul andthe propriety of the arrest and search rendered moot’, is erroneous for the reason that this Court thereby ative, is attempting to determine what evidence convinced the jury of the guilt of the defendant-appellant beyond a re asonable) doubt, in contravention of ruling precedent -of this Court. " Reid v. State. ceca 808 ; 1967, 231-N. E. 2d | “effect of the f failure of the. Sheriff when - ‘making - 2 AO ; : Broderick v. State, Ind. sexeidge woe N. boa DAD 26, wonton ari denied 89 S. Ct. 164, SULS. S72, 21L. Kd2d 141; | Hardestu v. State, Ind. 1967, 251 Nob. dd 510. >. The Court da its opinion. failed to diseuss the’ Stata “tory powers of { Uhe Sheriff and based on the facts revealed by the reeord herein has ‘invaded the legislative: powers _granted by the Indiana ¢ ‘onstifution to the Gener: i “Assembly as expressed in Article 4, $2201), and Artie le * $1, in that the opinion of this Court doés not discuss. the ~ jurisdiction and legislative authority of a County Sheriff to arrest for -a misdemeanor beyond the confines of Ifis bailiwiek. Ee es .- ee Worrrerone, petitioner prays that he be granted a rehear- ing ita reconsideration of his appeal. i. ‘ : s- Cant M. FRANCESCHIN}, mae, * Carl M. Franecesehin, October, 1971. , .