Dokes v. Arkansas Petitioners' Reply to Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

    I n the

&vcptm? Court of ti?r Initrti
October Term, 1967 

No. 109

J o h n  H en b y  D qkes and  S ylvia  D okes,

Petitioners,
— v.—

S tate  op A rk an sas .

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

J ack  Greenberg

J am es  M. N abrit , III
M ic h ael  M eltsner

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

A n t h o n y  G. A msterdam  
3400 Chestnut Street 
Philadelphia, Pa.

J o h n  W . W alker

1304-B Wright Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas

D elector T iller

2305 Ringo Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas

Attorneys for Petitioners



I n the

ffotpron* Court of %  Mnitrit ^tatrs
October Term, 1967

No. 109

J o h n  H en r y  D okes and  S ylvia  D okes,

Petitioners,

S tate of A rkan sas .

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

One of the reasons petitioners request the Court grant 
certiorari is to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over 
the question whether one who is not told that officers can­
not make a search without a warrant should be held to 
waive the warrant requirement by acquiescing in a search. 
In its Brief in Opposition, the State of Arkansas urges 
the Court not to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction in this 
case because decisions of the lower courts are not in con­
flict over this question.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents a number 
of appellate court decisions which are at odds, p. 17, note 10. 
The latest conflict has occurred subsequent to the filing 
of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. In United States 
v. Nihrasch, 367 F.2d 740, 744 (7th Cir. 1966), the court 
of appeals held that an accused who had not been apprised 
of his Fourth Amendment rights could not consent to a 
search. In reaching this conclusion the court relied upon 
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); Judd v. United\



2

States, 89 App. D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649, 651 (1951); and 
United States v. Blalock, 255 F.Supp. 268 (E.D. Pa. 1966).

On June 29, 1967 in Gorman v. United States,------F.2d
—— ; 36 U.S.L. Week 2039, the First Circuit expressly 
refused to follow the holding of the Seventh Circuit in 
Nikrasch, that a suspect could not consent to a search if 
he was not advised of his rights under the Fourth 
Amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack  Greenberg

J am es M . N abrit , III
M ic h ael  M eltsner

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

A n t h o n y  G. A msterdam  
3400 Chestnut Street 
Philadelphia, Pa.

J o h n  W . W alker

1304-B Wright Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas

D elector T iller

2305 Ringo Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas

Attorneys for Petitioners



3

Certificate o f Service

This is to certify that I have served true copies of the 
Petitioners’ Reply to Brief in Opposition to Petition for 
Writ of Certiorari in the above styled case upon counsel 
for the State of Arkansas, by depositing same in the 
United States mail, air mail, postage prepaid, this 31st day 
of July 1967, addressed to the Honorable Joe Purcell, At­
torney General, Justice Building, Little Eock, Arkansas.

Attorney for Petitioners



ME1LEN PRESS INC.