Court Opinion

ID: 9570375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:22:43.970098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:11.457949
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, C. J.,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Jones, J., but wish to make these specific comments.
The exclusionary rule is a court-made sanction stemming from the right of persons to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The scope of the rule should be limited by its purpose.
*326The purpose of the rule is to deter unreasonable searches and seizures. “The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair.” Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206, 217, 80 S Ct 1437, 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). I am fearful that the resúlt of the majority’s decision will be to exclude relevant evidence in situations where there is neither need nor justification for exclusion.
I am not sure that Jones, J., is correct in saying that the majority’s approach will “[viscerate] the reason for an exclusionary rule” or “will lead to suggestions that the exclusionary rule should not operate when there are ‘adequate’ alternatives.” 304 Or at 341. Except for that concern, I join in the dissent.