Court Opinion

ID: 9575293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:47.743955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:47.109460
License: Public Domain

CLARK, J.
While concurring in the judgment, I dissent from part II of the opinion. The majority appropriately notes that “just as the court in Shuey II was bound by the prior determination of waiver, so also are we foreclosed by the law of the case from reexamining the substantive merits of the search issue in the absence of a showing that failure to do so *851would result in manifest injustice.” {Ante, p. 848.) The requisite showing of injustice has not been made here. Nevertheless, the majority reaches the search issue, gratuitously lending this court’s authority to the contention that police may not “secure” premises prior to obtaining a search warrant. The question being foreclosed by the law of the case, I express no opinion concerning it.
McComb, J., concurred.