Court Opinion

ID: 9469463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:41:19.068849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:24.144458
License: Public Domain

*301WILLIAM H. BECKER, Senior District Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion in this case, with serious reservations for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Justice Black-mun of the Supreme Court of the United States in Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980), because I believe it is more than possible that the rule enunciated in that opinion will become the majority rule in the future. The federal law in the field of unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional searches and seizures is being reexamined by the Supreme Court of the United States in a movement toward reexamination and restriction of the outer limits of the exclusionary rule. See United States v. Ross, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Even the author of the plurality opinion in Walter v. United States, supra, acknowledged in Part V of United States v. Ross, supra, that: “Nevertheless, the doctrine of stare decisis ...” does not preclude a change in the law governing warrantless searches. Because the result of the majority opinion follows an interpretation of the current law in this field of constitutional law in this Court and of the current opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, I concur with the reservations expressed above.