Court Opinion

ID: 9536609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:03:21.350857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:50.850375
License: Public Domain

*440LOCKWOOD, Justice
(concurring in the dissent) :
I concur in the dissent of Justice Struckmeyer:
I fail to see why “[the] equalization of the rights and obligations of men and women” justifies erosion of this Court’s longstanding policy of supporting and encouraging the institution of marriage. While the rights of both the man and woman are equal, neither one is “more equal” than the other. A warrantless search of areas of the home under joint control should only be permitted where both spouses have given consent. Marriage and the home are thus protected.
The rationale underlying our holding in Pina remains valid today. I would therefore order the case returned to the Superi- or Court to determine whether the Yuma Police had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a search warrant.