Court Opinion

ID: 9729494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:38:00.306076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:58.911458
License: Public Domain

POCHÉ, J.
I concur in the judgment and in parts IV and V of the lead opinion.
Before the entry by the three officers led by Officer Platt which gives rise to appellant’s primary contentions, other undercover police officers were already lawfully in the residence and were eyewitnesses to the “buy.” With respect to them no Ramey or knock-notice problems arise. *387The observations of these officers formed an independent basis for the search warrant and for the seizure of each item sought to be suppressed. Accordingly, I see no need to address the issues, particularly those of constitutional dimension, discussed in parts I, II and III of the lead opinion. Any illegality involved in the arrest by the other officers or by the entry of the residence by them is irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the denial of this section 1538.5 motion.
Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 11, 1981.