Court Opinion

ID: 9753070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:56:08.509531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:29.196188
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
concurring:
*1140I agree that Thompson1 and Mincey2 are controlling here. But, unlike those cases, this case does not present a scope of search problem. Here, the evidence, including bullets, bullet holes, and a blood covered bag, were all seized in plain view shortly after the commission of the crime. Thus the crucial question is the validity of the actual entries made by officers Dryden, Stiftar, and Gmitter. Hennessy’s entry and observations are concededly valid. The majority asserts that the procurement of a search warrant was the only way to legitimate the other officers’ entries. True enough, since Hennessy had secured and departed the premises prior to their arrival. However, Hennessy could have stayed on the scene for the short period it took the others to arrive, thus not triggering the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. at 2413.

. Thompson v. Louisiana, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984).

. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).