Court Opinion

ID: 9584855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:53:18.41416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:07.162888
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
¶ 14. (concurring). Although I agree with much of the majority opinion, I do not fully join in it for three reasons.
¶ 15. First, the majority opinion offers an all-too-sparse summary of the factual record, additional portions of which are essential to a complete understanding of the case.
¶ 16. Second, while the majority opinion acknowledges that this case involves a warrantless search, it draws much of its legal sustenance from the well of search warrant authority. Without citation to *16authority, it then asserts, "[TJhere was no warrant here, but similar principles apply...Majority at ¶ 9. Do similar principles apply? Perhaps, but the majority opinion has failed to explain why, in this case, it is necessary or appropriate to rely on what often stands as a significantly distinct body of law.
¶ 17. Third, the majority opinion relies on attenuation principles but, curiously, comments that these principles are "not directly applicable here...." Majority at ¶ 12. If "not directly applicable here," however, they play little if any part in the analysis. But in my estimation, this portion of the majority opinion sells itself short; the attenuation analysis is "directly applicable here."
¶ 18. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.