Court Opinion

ID: 9467889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:58:50.388449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:34.594592
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the denial of a rehearing en banc by the full court:
In order to avoid an overflow of emotion triggered by the majority opinion, I have chosen to set forth only briefly my reasons why this case must be reheard en banc.
First, the majority repeatedly assert that it would affirm the district court but for the fact that the police conduct was a single isolated intrusion. That fact is refuted by the record. As set out on page 21 of the reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the suppression motion, Officer Stanford testified, “It was actually the first time that I ever did this with a child that young.” The implication of this statement is obvious: bribing children to inform against their parents is not an isolated police practice.
Secondly, the case began as a state prosecution. After the state trial judge suppressed the evidence because of the activities of the police in his state, the state prosecutor dismissed the charges.
If this police conduct is offensive to the state courts of Washington, it is offensive to the basic principles of federalism when the federal courts tell the people of Washington that they must accept that type of police conduct. The erosion of the basic concepts of federalism was denounced by the Chief Justice in his address of June 10, 1980 to the American Law Institute.
Thirdly, the adoption by this circuit of the principle that before it will invalidate police misconduct there must be a regular practice of such misconduct is unsupported in both law and reason. This new rule will cause mischief beyond belief to the constitutional liberties of all Americans.
Lastly, the emotions created by this case have caused the court to brush aside its appellate responsibilities. Rule 12(e) of the Criminal Rules requires district courts in determining suppression motions to make findings on the record, and we must enforce this rule if we are to properly adjudicate cases on appeal.
*891The district judge did not make any findings other than the conclusory one that the conduct of the officer shocked his conscience. In fact, the search warrant and the affidavit in support of it, which were pivotal in deciding the suppression motion, were not even received in evidence and are not a part of the record on appeal.
It is submitted that the court should not decide cases on such record. As the decision in this case demonstrates, only confusion will result.