Court Opinion

ID: 9737482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:26:25.48615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.237566
License: Public Domain

LaROCQUE, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. The Murray decision has no application here. Murray deals with the police failure to mention to the issuing magistrate *629the fact of their illegal forced entry into the subject warehouse where they observed hundreds of bales of marijuana. This case is controlled by Karo. That case also involved an illegal pre-warrant police search, but those facts were presented to the magistrate in the search warrant affidavit. Karo holds that if sufficient untainted evidence is included in the application for a search warrant, the warrant is valid. The majority here notes that Murray makes no mention of Karo, yet, if the facts here are controlled by Murray, then Karo is overruled. I believe that Murray does not mention Karo, decided only four years earlier, because the cases deal with different circumstances.
I would reverse the order suppressing the evidence based upon the conclusion reached by both the trial court and this court that there was sufficient evidence to support a search warrant without the clipped marijuana bud.