Court Opinion

ID: 9525482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:04:08.167377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:59.173325
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The majority has seized on South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000, 96 S. Ct. 3092, to uphold a search patently violative of rights guaranteed to the defendant under the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 6, of our State Constitution. Opperman, in my opinion, was wrongly decided and I can add nothing to Mr. Justice Marshall’s devastating refutation of the fallacies upon which the plurality and concurring opinions rest. The decisioh in Opperman will accelerate the “slow strangulation of the [exclusionary] rule” (United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 561, 45 L. Ed. 2d 374, 395, 95 S. Ct. 2313, 2330) so eloquently condemned by Mr. Justice Brennan. (See also United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 460, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1046, 1064, 96 S. Ct. 3021, 3035; Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 496, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1092, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 3055.) I would reverse the judgment.