Court Opinion

ID: 9633368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:44:40.325158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:33.422614
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result and agree that the deputy prosecutor’s surreptitious action in obtaining a copy of the psychiatrist’s report was not prejudicial to the appellant. However, I do not concur in the dictum concerning the efficacy of the rule excluding, in a proper case, evidence wrongfully obtained. The authority cited for the criticism of the rule hardly rises to the dignity of precedent and I do not regard it as having more persuasive value than the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. The debate concerning the propriety of the exclusionary rule has raged for many years, and it seems to me that it should be grappled with only when a factual situation involving it is presented to the court. At such a moment there is at least a greater possibility that both sides of the question will be presented.
In State v. Cory, 62 Wn.2d 371, 378, 382 P.2d 1019 (1963), we held that where the conduct of the prosecutor seriously invades the constitutional rights of the defendant, the entire proceeding is vitiated. We approved the position taken by the California Supreme Court that the courts should not have any hand in the “dirty business” of obtaining evidence by illegal means, and that to allow the introduction of such evidence gives tacit approval to the procedure adopted in acquiring it.
We quoted the following from People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 445, 282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513 (1955):
We have been compelled to reach that conclusion because other remedies have completely failed to secure compliance with the constitutional provisions on the part of police officers with the attendant result that the courts under the old rule have been constantly required to par*338ticipate in, and in effect condone, the lawless activities of law enforcement officers.
Until State v. Cory, supra, is overruled, I believe it is the law in this jurisdiction and should not be clouded by dictum in another case in which the question is not before the court.
October 14, 1970. Petition for rehearing denied.