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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0558%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Grandting of Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1958
- **Citation:** 358 U.S. 894

## Text

Spree Got

itr

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 |.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0558%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.