Court Opinion

ID: 9847242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:56:23.444096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:04.156056
License: Public Domain

BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I write separately because the majority opinion uses the wrong standard to define custody. Traditionally, California courts have used the Arnold standard. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 133.) 1-find no principled reason to abandon that precedent.
Further, it is unseemly to see this court strain to reach the issue of “inevitable discovery” when it is both unnecessary and inappropriate. The overalls were admissible because they were discovered and seized independently of the unMirandized statement. Why should this court speculate about whether they might have been so discovered and seized?
This is not an inevitable discovery case. The overalls were already discovered. No fancy inevitable discovery theories are needed to break the chain between the consent and the seizure. The overalls were found as a result of the investigation at the garage. They were not seized as a result of any earlier illegalities by the police.
It is unfair to the parties to adopt such a slippery doctrine as inevitable discovery when the facts do not present the issue, and the theory was not argued below.
Broussard, J., and Reynoso, J., concurred.
Petitioner’s application for a rehearing was denied November 27, 1985. Reynoso, J., was of the opinion that the application should be granted.