Court Opinion

ID: 9731131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:34:53.709085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:13.733530
License: Public Domain

SONENSHINE, J.
I concur with the result but withhold judgment at this time on the import of the quoted language of People v. McDowell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 551 [250 Cal.Rptr. 530, 758 P.2d 1060]. I believe that analysis is unnecessary to the opinion, in that the Attorney General’s inevitable discovery argument was not based on the theory a different warrant would have issued from any “judge in the world.” Rather, he argued “the officers could have searched the bag under the auspices of the warrant that arrived ten minutes later,” rendering it “independently admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.” Therefore his argument was not that a *595warrant would have issued, it was that one did issue and that the issued warrant inferentially encompassed the bag.
My review of respondent’s brief reveals not a single citation to McDowell. While respondent did attempt to inject such an analysis for the first time during oral argument, I believe the issue was not timely raised. The majority addresses the contention, but by disposing of an argument not raised by the parties, it is erecting a straw person to knock down.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 1990. Panelli, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.