Court Opinion

ID: 9771364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:40:00.834653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:28.790177
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. Another chip at the Fourth Amendment! I concur in order to defend our opinion in Fainv. State, 271 Ark. 874,611 S.W.2d 508 (1981), not merely because I wrote the opinion for the court, but because I believe Fain reflects the correct expression of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule. Is it not enough for this court and the United States Supreme Court to constantly engineer new exceptions to the exclusionary rule? Must we also broaden the scope of the exceptions themselves to the point where there is nothing left of the rule and the Fourth Amendment except empty words on faded paper? If we cannot expect our public police officers to act in “good faith” at all times, then something is wrong with the system. Curiously, there is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate that Detective Clyde Steelman was not only acting within the law at all times, but that he was also acting in “good faith.” Why, then, does this court choose to “water down” the Fourth Amendment when there is absolutely no hint of “bad faith” on the part of the police? The reason for deleting the “good faith” requirement on the part of the officers escapes me completely. Inevitably it will be used for the purpose of allowing the introduction of evidence obtained as a result of unlawful entries by officers. A cure such as this is worse than the disease. The opinion in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), states in part: 756 S.W.2d 457 If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. . . then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received. The present decision of this court completely ignores the fundamental purpose of the exclusionary rule — to deter “bad faith” conduct on the part of the government. The state is no more justified in violating the law than those accused by the state of doing so. I can only pray that the Fourth Amendment is rediscovered before it is forgotten.