Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Grandting of Writ of Certiorari — Cooper v. California

Spree Got

itr <Octoaza Tram, 1958

i "No. 423

a

? * oe.

Tue Peortz oF THE State or CALIFoRNIA, .

grief OF RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO

GRANTING ING OF WRIT OF ns Sarma

: “ ity Attorney of the City of

Los Angeles,

“ Pamir E. Gary,

stn. Assistant City Attorney,

- Tat Wu.am E. Doran,

Deputy City Attorney,

By Pur E. Grey,

» 40 City Hall,

oer 9 Sree

"Parker & Bon, Inc, Law Printern Los Angeles Phase MA 6507,

og ee ae | ys fs, Petitioner,

Los Angeles 12, California,

for The People of the.

ly

a

4

aa

SUBJECT INDEX.

‘ ; PAGE

a I. . . e Pas | °

The petition for writ of certiorari should be deniédo...c.ua. 1

‘IL.

/ o

Conclusion " ‘i iain ne atlas alc aaa ae

. Pi .

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED —

CASES ike Fi pace

Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 98 L. ‘Ed. 561, 74 S. Ct

I ae asl Deals oo SR :

People v. Cahan, 48 Cal, 2A 434, 2B2 Pi: Bb DOG xcccecccnenss.....1, 2

Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S. Ct.

* 205 Bee eRe OPT OE Dissicasasidonahbeanadtsssteeupapernast ie shade 2

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 93 L. Ed. 1782, 69 S. Ct. 1359 1

| STATUTES .-

United States Constitution, Fough ETRE Ls

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment nM ae asa ]

s

.

Set

.

IN THE”

_Sapreme Court of the United States

Obroain Term, 19: a

r No. 423 '

Tom Cooper, | i ~~

; Bs. .« Petitioner,

" - vw.”

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

‘ =e Respondent.”

© -o >

BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO °

GRANTING OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

7 . ee /

| x A ;

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari Should Be Denied.

’ Petitioner is. attempting to secure a hearing in this

Court upon the basis that the search and seizure under

the valid warrant of -arrest. ‘as outlined in the petition,

violated: the Fourth Amendment and the %Self-incrimina-

tion and due pfocess provisions of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment to the Constitution of the United States.

In a prosecution in a state court for a state crime the

Fourteenth Amendment does not forhid ‘the ‘admission

of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.

Wolf v. Colorado, 338°U. S.°25, 27, 93 L. Ed.

1782, 1785, 69 S. Ct. 1359;

Irvine @. California, 347 UL S 128, 132, 98 L. Ed.

561% 569, 74S. Ct. 381.

iS

Nof does ‘petitioner indicate any facts . approaching

coercion, applied by a physical assault upon the person

such as to cofipel submission to the use of a stomach

.

EEE

suiiiiaes

pump, that could bring him within the sphere of Rochin

v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S. Ct. 205.

.Moreover, thé search:and seizure in question was not

unreasonable. Since this Court decided the above-cited

cases California has adopted the exclusionary rule of il- .

legally obtained evidence (People v.. Cahan, 44 Cal. 24.

434, 282 P. 2d 905.) The opinion of the Appellate De-

partment of the Superior Court (Petition, Appendix ‘‘A”).

and cases: cited therein, clearly indicate a deciSion based

entirely on California rules of evidence. ras

; IL.

- Conclusion.

The petition for" writ of certiorari dées not disclose a

~ clear and convincing showing that there has been a viola-

tion of petitioner's rights under the Federal Constitution,

-- nor does it show that the highest’ court of the State of

California has. decided a federal question in conflict with

applicable decisions of this Court, or deéided a federal

question of substance not theretofore determined by this

Court. pee

Respondent prays that the petition. be denied.

Respectfully mitted,

», RoGex ARNEBERGH, :

Cyty Attorney of the City of

J Los Angeles,

aS Puitip E, Grey, :

o Assistant City Attorhey,

i Witra E. Doran,

Deputy City ‘Attorney,

By Purr E. GREY,

sO aah ° Attorneys for The People of the

State of California.

/

eRe |.