State of Colorado v. Symes

• Decision Date: 31 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. 19,O,19
• Citation: 76 L.Ed. 1253,286 U.S. 510,52 S.Ct. 635
• Parties: STATE OF COLORADO v. SYMES, Judge, et al. riginal
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

286 U.S. 510

52 S.Ct. 635

76 L.Ed. 1253

STATE OF COLORADO

v SYMES, Judge, et al.

No. 19, Original.

Submitted on Return to Rule to Show Cause April 11, 1932.

Decided May 31, 1932.

Messrs. Clarence L. Ireland and George A. Crowder, both of Denver, Colo., for

[Argument of Counsel from page 511-513 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Thos. D.Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mahlon D. Kiefer, John J. Byrne, and Erwin N. Griswold, all of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from page 513 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

November 9, 1931, the prosecuting attorney of Arapahoe county, Colo., filed an information in the state court charging that on November 7 Henry Dierks killed and murdered Melford Smith. A warrant issued, the accused was arrested thereon and admitted to bail. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus cum causa in the United States District Court alleging that he is a United States prohibition agent and other facts in which he claims immunity from prosecution in the state court and prayed removal of the case to the federal court under Judicial Code, § 33, as amended (28 U. S. C. § 76 (28 USCA § 76)). The district judge granted the writ, the marshal served it as required by the statute, and so the case was taken from the state court. The prosecuting attorney promptly moved to remand on the ground that the petition is not sufficient to give the federal court jurisdiction. His motion was denied. 55 F.(2d) 371. Thereupon, leave having been granted, the state acting through its Governor filed a motion in this court for a rule requiring the district judge to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel him to remand the case. The motion was granted and the judge has made his response to the rule in which he maintains that mandamus should not be granted. The case is submitted by the state on the brief of its attorney general. The Solicitor General of the United States submits a brief in opposition.

As the prosecuting attorney did not join issue with any of the allegations of the petition for removal, the jurisdiction of the federal court and the validity of its action are to be determined upon the allegations of the petition.

Eliminating formal parts and much unnecessary verbiage, we give its full substance. After showing that Dierks was accused, arrested and admitted to bail the petition represents:

He has long been a prohibition agent and the act for which he was informed against was done by right of his office and while he was engaged in the discharge of his official duties 'in making and attempting to make an investigation concerning a violation of the National Prohibition Act and other Internal Revenue laws, and reporting the results of said investigation, and in protecting himself in the discharge of his duty as follows:'

November 7, 1931, he and one Ellsworth, another prohibition agent, were directed by the administrator in charge to investigate a complaint of violations of the prohibition act and revenue laws reported as being committed at No. 3005, South Broadway in Englewood. About 9:30 in the evening they went to that place for the purpose of investigating such violations. It was a hamburger stand or restaurant. Petitioner exhibited his badge and in- formed the man in charge that he was a prohibition agent and had come to investigate reports of violations of the act and was given permission to search the premises. While he 'was in the act of observing and searching said premises, one Melford Smith entered * * * seated himself on an unoccupied stool at the counter * * * took out a pint bottle of wine from his inside coat pocket, and set the said bottle of wine on the counter * * * in full and open view of your petitioner, and * * * then proceeded to look for a drinking glass.'

Upon seeing the bottle of wine and believing Smith engaged in violating the prohibition act and revenue laws, petitioner 'proceeded to take possession of said bottle of wine, and to arrest * * * Smith; that thereupon * * * Smith did resist arrest, did attempt to destroy said bottle of wine, and did proceed to assault your petitioner and did attempt to escape, and that thereupon one Al Green did attempt * * * to help * * * Smith to escape, and that in the scuffle that ensued, and while your petitioner was engaged in the discharge of his official duties as such Federal Prohibition Officer in making, and attempting to make, said arrest of said Melford Smith, and in protecting himself in the discharge of his duties, and in attempting to seize said bottle of wine, it became necessary in order to subdue * * * Smith for your petitioner to strike, and he did strike, * * * Smith on the head with your petitioner's gun; that thereupon * * * Ellsworth came to the assistance of your petitioner;' and that they 'did arrest the said Melford Smith, the said Al Green, and one Leonard Carpenter, and did convey them to the' jail at Denver.

And the petitioner goes on to say that when Smith was placed in the jail he did not appear to have received injury, but that on the following day he became sick and died and petitioner 'alleges that the said Melford Smith did die from an injury to his head caused by a blow given * * * by your petitioner during the scuffle. * * *' And petitioner states 'he is not guilty of the crime of murder, or any other offense' and that the criminal proceeding 'arises out of and solely by reason of the acts performed by your petitioner as an officer acting' under the authority of the revenue laws and the National Prohibition Act.

The protection afforded by section 33¹ extends to prohibition agents. 27 U. S. C. § 45 (27 USCA § 45). The various acts of Congress constituting the section as it now stands were enacted to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States by safeguarding officers and others acting under federal authority against peril of punishment for violation of state law or obstruction or embarrassment by reason of opposing policy on the part of those exerting or controlling state power. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 25 L. Ed. 648; Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9, 32, 46 S. Ct. 185, 70 L. Ed. 449; Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 253, 18 L. Ed. 851; Findley v. Satterfield, Fed. Cas. No. 4,792. It scarcely need be said that such measures are to be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes for which they were enacted. See Venable v Richards, 105 U. S. 636, 638, 26 L.Ed. 1196; State of North Carolina v. Sullivan (C. C.) 50 F. 593, 594. And it is axiomatic that the right of the states, consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States, to make and enforce their own laws is equal to the right of the federal government to exert exclusive and supreme power in the field that by virtue of the Constitution belongs to it. The removal statute under consideration is to be construed with highest regard for such equality. Federal officers and employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law. Congress is not to be deemed to have intended that jurisdiction to try persons accused of violating the laws of a state...