Brief for Respondent

Quite appropriately, Justice Goldberg, who authored Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, provides the words most appropriate to conclude this brief. Speaking for the Court in United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. 102, he said:

"This court is alert to invalidate unconstitutional searches and seizures whether with or without a warrant. [Presumably, for purposes of this case, confessions and admissions may be substituted for the final phrase concerning searches and seizures.] [Citations omitted.] By doing so, it vindicates individual liberties and strengthens the administration of justice by promoting respect for law and order. This court is equally concerned to uphold the actions of law enforcement officers consistently following the proper constitutional course. This is no less important to the administration of justice than the invalidation of convictions because of disregard of individual rights or official overreaching. In our view the officers in this case did what the Constitution requires.

* * *

"It is vital that having done so their actions should be sustained under a system of justice responsive both to the needs of individual liberty and to the rights of the community." Id, at 111 and 112. (Emphasis added).

The officers in this case also acted within the constitutional standards, and it is equally vital that their actions be sustained.

The judgment and decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in this case below should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

DARREL F. SMITH,
The Attorney General of Arizona.

GARY K. NELSON,
Assistant Attorney General, Rm. 159, State Capitol Bldg., Phoenix, Arizona 85007,
Attorneys for Respondent.

GARY K. NELSON,
Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel
February, 1966