Court Opinion

ID: 9570373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:22:43.962167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:11.196380
License: Public Domain

CAMPBELL, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion. In State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 666 P2d 802 (1983) I joined in an opinion by then Associate Justice Peterson where he dissented in part and concurred in part. Among other things, he said:
*324“I also disassociate myself from the exclusionary rule discussion on pages 230-37 of the majority opinion. The basis for the majority’s holding is that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. The evidence therefore should be excluded. The discussion and holding beginning on page 231 with Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383, 34 S Ct 341, 58 L Ed 652 (1914), and ending on page 237 with State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 204 P 958, 206 P 290 (1922), is unnecessary.”
295 Or at 257-58.
I still agree that the dictum on pages 230-37 of the Davis opinion was unnecessary. However, it was a correct statement of the law and for that reason I have no hesitation in joining the majority in this case.