Court Opinion

ID: 9571526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:32:25.686984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:32.797905
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in affirmance). It is an unpleasant obligation of the appellate judge to have to admit error in what he has written into the case law of his State.
Mr. Justice Souris, in his discerning comment on People v. Lee, 371 Mich 563, requires me to confess error. I wrote for a unanimous Court in Lee) but as to its effect upon the proviso of article 2, § 10 which excepts from unreasonable searches and seizures outside the curtilage of any dwelling house, narcotics among other things, I can now speak only for myself.
. I was .wrong. My position was completely irreconcilable with that which I took by signing Justice Kelly’s opinion in In re Winkle, 372 Mich 292, certiorari denied 379 US 645 (85 S Ct 611, 13 L ed 2d 551). Either I must take my stand with Justice Kelly as to the constitutionality of the section, or I must accede to Justice Souris’ contention that the proviso “which purported to permit into evidence certain illegally seized evidence already has been effectively unanimously overruled by this ! Court.”
I stand with Justice Kelly and repeat my confession of error that I should have faced the Federal Constitutional question in Lee, supra. I evidence my position by this separate concurrence and by signing Justice Kelly’s opinion also.