Show J Validity of Supreme Court Decision on Invalid Seizure Is Questioned by Mr Ramage Thomas Ramage attorney a a friend of the court has petitioned the Utah supreme court for a a. re rehearing rehearing rehearing re- re hearing in the case of John Aimes Almes affecting the right of officers to toen- toen en enter ter a mans man's home to search and seize liquor without having a valid search warrant The supreme court re recently recently recently re- re decided that evidence ob obtained obtained oh- oh under such an invalid search warrant could be held which Mr Ir Ramage declares is in conflict with decisions of at the United States supreme court Officials of ot the supreme court count said that the time had expired for tor forthe forthe the filing flUng of such a a. document and nd that the case had been remitted to tho district court As a consequence it was wag said that the petition could not be accepted by the court Mr I Ramage said he ho disagreed with this I view holding that the time had not expired and further that he was within his rights in Ih filing the petition petition petition peti peti- tion even assuming that the case had been remitted to the the trial court u Mr Ramage gives it lt as his opinion that if the state supreme court adhere adheres adheres ad ad- heres here to its stand that the home of eve every r citizen could be subjected to search if under suspicion of an of of- fleer The attorney In making his plea for Ja a presents the following query HYPOTHETICAL CASE Supposing sing that John Aimes Almes had killed the sheriff or the deputy sheriff who went into his home homo with witha a search warrant which was invalid and the seizure under it was illegal illegal illegal ille ille- gal What would the supreme court say as to whether John Aimes was Continued on page 6 6 t v OF ak- ak aki f i f Continued from page 1 t murder or whether he was acting In the te defense of his home homo he ho should not be found ld heter not guilty in the act of self defense defense sel-defense 7 Would the supreme court of 01 this 1 I fato etto say that John Almes was as guilty of ot murder or not 7 After reciting that h he has hag no pe pe Interest In the case cae and that Jie po le believes that the te supreme court erred red in Its is decision deison Mr Ramage i says Fays In part The feThe The supreme court cour will wi remember ber bel that the Revolutionary war in America w was wa's s fought over the very J j I Fr O actions upon the part of the British military from from from 1620 1620 to 1774 The supreme court cour of this state did consideration in inthis not take Into this case the nefarious writ wrt of ot as assistance as- as I. I e Inaugurated by the British government and which entitled the military of the tho British Empire to break in and search learch homes offices and even the private person The nefarious writ of as assistance as- as was the tho greatest causo of the American Amerlean Revolution and andIn 0 In Inthis n this the petton petition as a friend of the c court urt we will vi submit volume 1 of the Life Lie of 01 John Marshall Marshal third chief hi t justice by former Senator Al Albert Albert Al- Al 1 bert ber J. J Beveridge and the cases case I as to the truth o of our pur ur contention DIFFERENCE QUESTIONED This This Is a liquor case but is there ther any difference between n liquor o or any other tiling thing thing which a person ma may r have in his house hous Is la It not the organized d minority against the unorganized majority that tat was the pause cause aus of the decision In Ill this case ce It I is true the liquor traffic should be suppressed but th the decision is so that th the home of of eo evory ory citizen may be ylo io- io upon the thought of every man who has a badge as a a polee police officer ho has lias authority to carry a gu gun and who may ay arrest ares at will 1 any person person per per- son rn that that in his mind is under sus sus- This his decision Is 25 such that a a po police po- po 1 lice officer may may break brea into my nIl Ice home or your home at any time o othe ot of the tle day or night and the only remedy remedy rem rem- rem rem- edy that an any person has is that tha h he hee e may be arrested for trespass o or you may sue him for damages in a civil action acton Everyone knows that tha thatto to o sue an officer for damages means means mean that you will wil never receive any compensation because most of ot ou our officers are and d do ot have an any property Was it not that this very ver action acton on OR the part of the te officer in this case case cae that caused King J John hn t to sign the Magna agna Charta Carta on th the Gr Great at Meadows Meado's TASKS ASKS REHEARING 7 The he supreme court of the United Stated State may be wong wrong In its Is do- do 0 cis ions ard ana the supreme court o of Utah uta m be right in its is decisions decision ns in this case but your petitioner be be- be that tat the decision of the su su- su court cour of Utah Uth is not in con con- Jeme with the best authority and therefore asks ak for a u. rehearing in inthis this case cae This honorable court cur will ie Ie- Ie re- re ebe that the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution o othe of the United States Sates are a part pat o of those tose things which men men fought and died die for and which are known as asa asa a a. a part par of the till bill bi of ot rights In 1789 the fourth and fifth fit amendments amendment L were were passed and ad the supreme cour court of ot the to United Unit States has upheld them tem ever since These amendments amend amen ments ment were wee passed when the capal capital cap cap- ital ItaI al of the United States wa was movable movable able ble and they were passed in New NewYork NewYork York ork City when the congress convened con- con there ther Later the people o of 0 the United Stats States passed the fourteenth four- four amendment to the constitution const const- of the United States which declared that no man should be convicted of any crime without due process of law When the attorney general generl cOn- cOn that the defendant in this case ce was a illegally invaded in his home borne was ws tried tred and convicted without due process of law can it be said sad by this court cour or by any other court that his constitutional h rights were not Inv Invaded ded CASE CASE IS CITED a. a Your Tour petitioner avers that that the st sentence of section section- 12 article artcle I of Utah is the same samei i s s the fifth kmen amendment amendment ment to the conI con- con I of the United States an and furthermore that tat section 14 14 1 arti- arti acl- acl t cle do I L Lof of the constitution of the state of ot Utah is the same as the fourth amendment to the constitution constitution tion ton of the United States Probably r this may not have been pointed out to the court court but bitt is the supreme cour ot this state to say that ItIs it itIs itIs Is at variance with wih the decisions oi of the supreme court of ot the United cour States The supreme court of the United States has decided cour in Boyd against the United States 16 U. U S S. S SiG 16 Weeks vs United States tf Ly t. t S Gouled vs United States S. S 31 and Amos vs United States U. U S. S that a search warrant must be regular that no norson's persons person's home his office his fac- fac tr or his person peron shall be invaded a a search searh warn warrant shall issue upon oath an ant the Judge issuing ithe the same must have probable cause 35 p f believe beleve a crime has been causo com corn mUted Your Tour petitioner avers that this court cour should not dissent with wih the supreme court cour of the United States upon a proposition of ot law of this wherein the constitution of ot the United Unie States Slates and and the constitution constitution I t tin of Utah have the same sae word word- word leg inC How 2 Z How ow can cn this supreme court or any any iy other supreme court cou take tae an view vew of law and its is Interpretation Inter inter- than that which has been ben I decIded decided by the supreme court cour of the I United States in the tho cases cited when the wording of the constitution tion ton In question are ae the same CHERRY IS RIGHT It I Is true that the opinion of or Mr lIr Justice Cherry is right when he hes s says S 'S that the supreme court curt of Utah decides that the fourth and fifth amendments amendmentS to the constitution tion ton of the United States do not apply in the matter mater of ot search and anti seizure in the state of or Utah Utah by state officers That Is the law Jaw and will wi alwa always s 's bo be the Jaw because a state prisoner can not invoke the federal constitution to protect him against the violation of a state law You Tou petitioner avers that the honorable court did not take into consideration section compiled laws of Utah 1917 upon the matter of search and seizure seizure In this case I and did not take Into consideration chapter 66 56 compiled laws of Utah Uth 1917 The first has ha to do with wih the manner In which a search wax warrant must be Issued in a case of ot this character and the second has to do with wih the Issuance of search warrants warrants war war- rants In general general Probably neither the constitution of Utah nor the laws Jaws aws passed in conformity therewith therewith there there- with sIth were wore called to the attention of the court Your Tour petitioner comes a as a friend of the CO coit N t to protect the II rights that are are- are guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and to every alien alen resident in this country countr and In this state Your Tour petitioner petitioner pe pe- pe- pe would hot ask for a rehearing rehearing rehear rehear- reher- reher ing of this case unless he he that this honorable court had erred In its is opinion Tour Your petitioner comes because Tie ne believes that that the court has probably taken a view which is la lanot not in conformity with wih the ideas which caused the formation of the American republic Wherefore your petitioner prays pr s sas as a fr friend nd of the court that a re rehearing rehearing re- re hearing may be cour granted in the tile above entitled action acton and that time may be given for the preparation of briefs to submit to this honorable court and ad for such other and general general gen gen- eral oral relief as ts may be beneficial to the citizens and residents of the state of Utah Uta |