Court Opinion

ID: 9552241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:06:59.190004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:54.486430
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in the result and dissenting).
I concur in the result only, because of procedural and jurisdictional grounds reported in State v. Kallas,1 cited in the main opinion, but dissent from the rest of the main opinion, which says this case is distinguishable from State By and Through Hansen v. Salt Lake City (Vagabond Club v. Salt Lake City),2 and Salt Lake City v. Wheeler.3 Every case is distinguishable from every other case, but the distinction here is without substance, and the fundamental constitutional principles apply here as well as in those cases. It appears that the main opinion is a commendably persistent effort to establish the dissents of Justices Ellett and Crockett in those cases, as the majority here. The same criticism may be leveled against the main opinion’s statement that Camara v. Municipal Court4 and See v. Seattle5 do not aid the plaintiffs’ position here. No good purpose can be served by a continuing discussion with respect to differences of opinion as to constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. I simply think that the legislation involved in the four cases last cited above invited such unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional searches and invasions of privacy, as does the legislation in the instant case, and that the cases cited are dispositive here.

. 97 Utah 492, 94 P.2d 414 (1939).

. 21 Utah 2d 318, 445 P.2d 691 (1968).

. 24 Utah 2d 112, 466 P.2d 838 (1970).

. 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed. 2d 930 (1967).

. 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed. 2d 943 (1967).