Opinion ID: 2069851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The question remains what the court should do with this case on this record.

Text: The defendant has expressed dissatisfaction with the circuit court's determination of selective credibility and the confusion evident in the record and in the circuit court's two findings. He urges this court to adopt the June 11 finding of the circuit court and conclude, as we did in our May order, that the state did not bear its burden of proving that the seizures complied with constitutional requirements. I am not persuaded this is the correct course. The state has also expressed dissatisfaction with the circuit court's determination of selective credibility, but concludes correctly, in my opinion, that we are bound by the findings of the lower court. State's supplemental brief, p. 8, note 4. On the basis of the circuit court's findings, which I think this court must accept, I would affirm the circuit court's decision that the two watches on the defendant's arms are admissible and the third is not. I would also suppress the jewelry case. The police officer gave different testimony at the two hearings regarding the seizure of the case, the defendant gave his version of the seizure of the case, and the circuit court made no findings of fact. I do not reach the issue of inevitable discovery because of the conflicting testimony, the circuit court's failure to make findings of fact, and the state's seeming reliance on a plain-view-search-incident-to-arrest theory and not inevitable discovery. For the reasons set forth, I dissent.