Court Opinion

ID: 9659757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:12.091975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.402444
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(concurring specialty)-
I concur in the majority opinion and would reverse the trial court’s order. We are not dealing with a private residence in this case. It is a public motel with a switchboard and where the owners and the maids have keys and a perfect right to enter the rooms to inspect or perform their duties. While it is true that the motel manager advised his brother and sister of his suspicions surrounding room # 6 and suggested that they look around, it is also true that these people normally check desk drawers as part of their cleaning duties. Implementing this policy gave the state a lawful source of knowledge of the facts independent of any information supplied by the alleged unlawful eavesdropping. I note that the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Illinois, 1975, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416, reaffirmed the “exploitation” test of Wong Sun, cited in the majority opinion, as opposed to a “but for” test in determining whether an illegal taint has been purged.
Finally, a reading of the entire record here does not indicate that the police were engaged in a flagrant abuse of the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. Instead, the police acted in good faith upon the affidavits of persons lawfully engaged in their duties as employees of the motel. Further, they conducted an independent *54surveillance of the activities in and out of the room before acting. Defendants have no basis for a Fourth Amendment complaint where they attempt to conduct a retail drug business out of a motel room.