Court Opinion

ID: 9766960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:04:43.198351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.457627
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (concurring). I agree with all that is stated in the Majority Opinion; and the purpose of this concurrence is to add another reason why I think this case should be affirmed, even in the face of the strong insistence of appellant that the club was a “private place.” The evidence shows that the entry into the club was obtained by permission. The officers told the man at the door that they knew the drummer in the band (which the evidence shows that they did), and then the officers paid the man at the door a dollar as admission fee and he told them: “Go in and have a good time.” So the officers gained entrance by permission, without misrepresentation; therefore, they were not trespassers. In 79 C.J.S. page 831, “Searches and Seizures” § 66, cases from various jurisdictions are cited to sustain this text: “The constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures do not prohibit a search without a search warrant that does not constitute a trespass. Hence, the obtaining of information by the eye, where it is not aided by a trespass, does not constitute an unlawful search, since no search is involved, and the use of a flashlight or searchlight in aid of vision does not render it illegal. The constitutional guaranty does not prohibit a seizure, without a search warrant, where the articles sought are disclosed to any one of the senses; ...” Therefore, even if the club had been a private club, my point is that the officers gained entrance by permission and were not trespassers and the constitutional provisions, against unreasonable search and,seizure, afford the appellant no shield in this case.