Court Opinion

ID: 9672797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:00:33.069028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.421748
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
I concur in the result, but not the reasoning, of Part I of my brother Brickley’s opinion insofar as it holds that the search of the box in question and the seizure of its contents did not violate defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there is no need to decide in this case whether art 1, § 11 of the state constitution imposes a higher standard by which to review police conduct during searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution. Rather, that issue should not be addressed until presented in a case which requires its resolution. Accordingly, we need not overrule in part our recent decision in People v Secrest, 413 Mich 521; 321 NW2d 368 (1982).
I especially take exception to the reasoning of my brother Brickley’s opinion insofar as its con*229elusion that there is no higher standard under the state constitution is based on the electorate’s admitted disdain for the exclusionary rule. That rule is merely a remedy created and imposed by the judiciary to deter unconstitutional police conduct; it is not mandated by either the state or the federal constitution. Indeed, reasoning which concludes that the state constitution does not require a higher standard by which to review police conduct during searches and seizures merely because the people of this state dislike the remedy imposed to deter police conduct which violates the standard imposed by that constitution is faulty. Simply stated, the standard required by the state constitution has no relation to the judicially created, but not constitutionally mandated, remedy imposed to deter violations of that standard.
Finally, I agree with my brother Ryan’s analysis and conclusion as to the issue regarding the attorney-client privilege in this case. Accordingly, I do not join Part II of my brother Brickley’s opinion, but agree that the defendant’s conviction must be reversed.
Kavanagh, J.
Judge Mackenzie’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in People v Nash, 110 Mich App 428; 313 NW2d 307 (1981), addressing the failure of the trial court to suppress evidence seized from the box in front of defendant’s abode, fully and accurately sets forth the law. That Court’s decision to reverse and order suppression is correct for the reasons stated therein and should be affirmed.
Likewise the decision that it was error to allow the jury to learn the source of the evidence obtained by warrant from defendant’s attorney was correct for the reasons Judge Mackenzie stated and, hence, should also be affirmed.
*230Her opinion also treats of other issues raised on appeal to that Court, but not pressed on appeal here. Accordingly, we express no opinion thereon. We would affirm.
Levin, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.