in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. The Declaratory Judgment Statute is applicable only where there is a present actual controversy, and all interested persons are made parties, and only where justiciable issues are presented. It does not undertake to decide the legal effect of laws upon a state of facts which is future, contingent or uncertain. A declaratory judgment will not be granted unless the danger or dilemma of the plaintiff is present, not contingent on the happening of hypothetical future events; the prejudice to his position must be actual and genuine and not merely possible, speculative, contingent, or remote. Id. (quoting Anderson on Declaratory Judgments (2d. ed. 1951)); see also Cummings v. City of Fayetteville, 294 Ark. 151, 741 S.W.2d 638 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In the case brought to us for decision, I
holding that under 28 usc  1292b the appellate courts may review only matters in the order not all issues in the case holding that although a state may be free to develop its own laws of search and seizure to meet law enforcement needs such laws may not authorize police conduct which trenches upon fourth amendment rights regardless of the labels which it attaches to such conduct recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding that there was no justiciable controversy and that while many laws may be easily subject to challenge we may only review such matters in a proper law suit holding that the summoned party may in an enforcement proceeding challenge the  7609f2 determination that there is a reasonable basis for believing there may be a violation of a revenue law