Court Opinion

ID: 9720542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:34:45.220154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:19.387863
License: Public Domain

KANE,
I reluctantly concur under the compulsion of stare decisis (People v. Mickelson (1963) 59 Cal.2d 448, 454 [30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658]; People v. Smith (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 41 [84 Cal.Rptr. 229]). This case is yet another example of the frivolous extension of the exclusionaiy rule. We are required by higher authority to reject, and thereby discourage, proficient and unoppressive police investigation on the abstruse distinction between detention and arrest.
Since the overriding concept in any search and seizure issue is “reasonableness under all the circumstances” (United States v. Rabinowitz (1950) 339 U.S. 56, 66 [94 L.Ed. 653, 660, 70 S.Ct. 430]; People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160 [107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621]), and since I believe that Officer Samuelson had probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery, I would—if writing on a clean slate—uphold the search. Unfortunately, as spelled out in the main opinion, the slate is covered and this court is not possessed with the power of erasure.
A petition" for a rehearing was denied August 9, 1978.