Court Opinion

ID: 9636486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:30:50.74022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.917470
License: Public Domain

*34Morse, J.,
concurring. I join in the judgment and opinion of the Court, but I write separately to underscore a particular aspect of this case that I find significant. Contrary to the dissent, there is no support for a finding that the State, through its agents, acted with a nefarious motive in taping defendant’s consultation with his attorney, or that they intended to capture the substance of defendant’s conversation. Rather, it appears it was the unintended result of a practice aimed at addressing an entirely separate concern. Where the violation, like here, is unintentional and not the product of a conscious disregard for a defendant’s right to privately consult with an attorney, and no prejudice flows from the violation, the trial court’s decision not to suppress defendant’s refusal or dismiss the charge was proper.
I am authorized to say that Justice Dooley joins in this concurrence.