When a person is properly charged with a crime, the courts will not inquire into the circumstances under which he is brought into the state and within the jurisdiction of the court.

—it was held that this reasoning should not be extended to criminal cases because when a defendant is forcibly abducted the people are guilty of no wrong; only the law enforcement officials have broken the law.

Indeed, there are many authorities which go to the extent of holding that in criminal cases a forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party sould not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.

And, under Iowa law, government officials could assert a justification defense to these causes of action pursuant to a valid warrant or other process.

—parties acting without authority in Missouri, brought to Iowa and re-arrested; court held "the State is guilty of no wrong.... The officers of the law take the requisite process, find the persons charged within the jurisdiction, and this, too, without force, wrong, fraud or violence on the part of any agent of the State or officer thereof

—rejecting claims by defendants that they could not be criminally prosecuted despite being arrested in Missouri in violation of that state's law

In State v. Ross, the supreme court of Iowa declared the same doctrine, and stated the distinction between civil and criminal cases where the party is by fraud or violence brought within the jurisdiction of the court.

Only questions of law and fact arising upon the face of the record are subjects of judicial inquiry.