Court Opinion

ID: 9510531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:56:51.852736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:01.973497
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE,
dissenting.
¶80 I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion at ¶¶ 41-45, concluding that corroboration for a search warrant can only be sufficient if it is the result of “police investigation.” As stated in Justice Regnier’s concurring opinion, “[p]ursuant to the Court’s opinion, the only corroboration that can serve to cure the inadequacies of an informant’s report is corroboration through ‘independent investigation’ by law enforcement personnel.” This requirement is too restrictive. Certainly corroboration can be obtained in many ways other than “independent police investigation.” For that reason, I dissent from the majority opinion.
¶81 The well-reasoned discussion concerning other aspects of the inadequacies of the warrant application in Justice Regnier’s concurring opinion I believe to be correct, and, therefore, I join in that part of the concurring opinion.