—of the defendant's demand: "If, however, the accused does not know until the paper or other article is offered in evidence that it was obtained by an unlawful seizure, he is nevertheless entitled at that time to an order of the court directing a return of the property [citing Weeks and two later decisions]. This rule of practice sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United …

If defendant's rights were not violated by the initial detention and exposure to the police dog, "defendant cannot complain for the reason that if the right of any person was violated it was that of*** some other third person, and not that of the defendant."

And similar Criminal Syndicalism statutes of other States, some less specific in their definitions, have been held by the State courts not to be void for indefiniteness.

—explaining that, "where a single offense may be committed by several means [,] it may be charged in a single count to have been so committed, if the ways or means are not repugnant

—the court noted that “[t] he defendant also relies upon article I, § 9, of our state Constitution, which, although not in the identical language, is in effect and meaning the same as [Amendment] IV of the federal Constitution.”

Oregon, for example, adopted an exclusionary rule long before the United States Supreme Court did so under the Fourth Amendment.

"The office of the title is to advise the members of the legislature of the subject of the proposed legislation, but the details must be found in the body of the measure. If the subject of the enactment is so expressed in the title as to give reasonable notice of the contents of the law, it is sufficient:***."

The general requirement that an issue, to be raised and considered on appeal, ordinarily must first be presented to the trial court is well-settled in our jurisprudence.

The Syndicalism Act is not class legislation; it affects all alike, no matter what their business associations or callings, who come within its terms and do the things prohibited.

The origins of this court's commitment to a rule excluding from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is nearly a century old.