Court Opinion

ID: 9547027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:40:26.219557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:13.139359
License: Public Domain

Finley, C. J.
(concurring in the result) — For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in State v. Rousseau (1952), 40 Wn. (2d) 92, 241 P. (2d) 447, I am opposed to the rule which requires the exclusion or nonuse of evidence or information acquired through illegal arrest or search and seizure. At the time of the Rousseau case, the exclusionary rule was based upon Washington case law originating with State v. Buckley (1927), 145 Wash. 87, 258 Pac. 1030. However, the United States Supreme Court has recently stated in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U. S. 643, 657, 6 L. Ed. (2d) 1081, 81 S. Ct. 1684, “. . . the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. . . . ” I feel compelled to accede to the ratio decidendi of the Mapp case, and consequently on this basis I concur in the result.