Court Opinion

ID: 9454051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:34:09.581013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:56.752718
License: Public Domain

McCREE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the order reversing the judgment of the District Court and remanding the case for a full evidentiary hearing on the question of the constitutionality of the seizure of appellant’s suit. However, I would phrase the questions to be answered by the District Judge as follows:
What facts did the police officers possess at the time of the warrantless seizure of the suit which afforded them probable cause to believe that a laboratory inspection would be productive of evidence in the homicide ?
Since appellant was in custody, the manager of the cleaning establishment was cooperative, and it is alleged that a magistrate was available, what emergency existed to justify dispensing with the requirement of obtaining a warrant for the seizure of the suit?
I agree that the error committed m admitting evidence of appellant’s refusal to submit to a dermal nitrate test does not require relief. I do so because the error involved no violation of a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and thus is not cognizable on habeas corpus. See Clarke v. State, 218 Tenn. 259, 402 S.W.2d 863, 868-869 (1966).