a balloon; he (defendant) did not throw the balloon and he did not know what happened--that a guy (wearing a black shirt) ran around the corner; the officers found another capsule near defendant while they were choking him; that capsule did not come from his mouth, and he had not seen it before; he had not purchased any narcotics, and he was not trying to do so--he had been talking to the guy who ran away; he did not tell the officers that he had just purchased the balloon, nor tell them that the man who ran away was a dealer; he had been taking the naline test during a period of approximately two months preceding the arrest. Defendant testified further that he had been convicted twice ofdefendant wherein it was found that the conduct of the officers in obtaining the evidence amounted to brutality and it shocked the conscience. The evidence herein was sufficient to support a finding that the heroin, which defendant had put into his mouth, was not obtained illegally by the officers.
 Appellant also asserts that he spoke to his attorney (who represented him at the trial) regarding the matter of requiring the prosecution to show cause why defendant was arrested without a warrant. He asserts that he thought that his attorney was going to raise that issue. It seems that defendant is contending that he was not adequately represented by counsel at the trial. He did not advise the trial judge that he considered that he was not properly represented.