Court Opinion

ID: 9795619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:32:35.957079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:40.619300
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 27] I generally concur in the majority’s resolution of the issues. I write separately because I am troubled by three related aspects of this case. First, witnesses who are about to testify swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Second, trial court decisions on suppression motions are supposed to be based upon the totality of the circumstances. Third, prosecutors are supposed to be committed to justice, not just to winning.
[¶ 28] In contravention of these principles, the prosecutor in this case carefully orchestrated his direct examination of the arresting officer to prevent the trial court from learning the “whole truth.” By asking the officer when he first contacted the appellant, the prosecutor made sure the trial court did not learn that the officer had actually followed the appellant from a suspected “dope house” where the officer had been conducting surveillance. Furthermore, neither the officer nor the prosecutor timely revealed to the appellant or to the trial court that a videotape had been made of the traffic stop.1 Coincidentally, perhaps, a review of the videotape would have made the appellant and his attorney aware of the surveillance and the fact that the officer was actually tailing the appellant at the time' of the traffic stop.
[¶ 29] I am satisfied that the majority’s analysis of the controlling legal issues is correct, and that, in the end, the appellant was not prejudiced by the conduct of the officer and the prosecutor.2 Nevertheless, I believe *1054it is incumbent upon this Court to note its disapproval of prosecutorial or police conduct that “crosses the line.” If the State had an interest in continuing secret surveillance of the “dope house” in the hope of catching bigger fish, the proper approach was to let this small fry go, rather than produce only a portion of the truth for the trial court.

. The appellant learned of the existence of the videotape during a conversation with a member of the staff at the detention center.

. In particular, as the majority notes, a pretext stop is not, per se, unlawful, and the appellant does not challenge the legitimacy of the traffic stop in this case.