Court Opinion

ID: 9630550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:13:57.660924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:16.126609
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would join Justice Thomas’ dissent to the refusal to grant the petition for rehearing, with these following remarks:
I think the majority has clearly committed a constitutional error as indicated by fn.5 in the majority and the discussion of plain-view seizure by the minority in Washington v. Chrisman, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 812, 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). Incidentally, the minority’s discussion of plain-view seizure is in all ways compatible with the majority position on that issue.
These writings so uniquely point to the probability that the United States Supreme Court would reverse the majority opinion if given the opportunity, that I think we should ourselves review and reconsider the case.
I must say parenthetically that these opinions also point to the fact that the United States Supreme Court seems to regard the exclusionary rule as continuing to be vital, alive and applicable — contrary to the way that Justice Thomas would hold as expressed in his specially concurring opinion.
I would have granted the petition for rehearing.