Court Opinion

ID: 9704087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:21:31.185445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:56.193455
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent because this search was unreasonable. While I support the general proposition that police need protection when they are suspicious of an individual, the record here simply does not support the conclusion that the police officer conducting the search had any suspicion whatsoever that this defendant was violating any laws or was in any way dangerous when he entered the room. This fact distinguishes the present appeal from the cases relied upon by the majority. Adams v. Williams,1 the most recent United States Supreme Court decision relied on by the majority, concerned a situation in which the police had suspicions of the defendant. In Adams, the court extended Terry v. Ohio2 to say that information from an informant may constitute that suspicion. Until there is suspicion, therefore, Adams and Terry do not come into the picture. In this case there simply was no suspicion and thus the rationale of Terry, Adams, and the other cases cited is not relevant.
The county court was clearly incorrect in holding that a defendant must be under arrest or charged at the time of the search in order for it to be valid. The majority would order the trial court to deny the motion to suppress. But there are no facts to support the majority’s determination. The consistent, unrefuted, and *304definite statements by the police all point to the conclusion that they, had no suspicion of this defendant. I would affirm the trial court’s order on the basis of this testimony.3
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Hallows and Mr. Justice Heffernan join in this dissent.

 (1972), 407 U. S. 143, 92 Sup. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612.

 (1968), 392 U. S. 1, 88 Sup. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889.

 For a detailed discussion of the law relating to weapon searches of individuals not suspected of crimes, see People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1972), 7 Cal. 3d 186, 101 Cal. Rptr. 837, 496 Pac. 2d 1205, wherein the Supreme Court of California declared unconstitutional a weapons search of a person stopped for a traffic violation when the police admitted that they had no cause to believe that the person searched had committed a crime or was carrying a weapon. See especially 101 Cal. Rptr. at page 852.