Court Opinion

ID: 9629277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:51.875081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:44.537059
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, and in much of its reasoning. I am unable, however, to agree with the flat application of the harmless error rule of State v. Han Hooser, 226 Or 19, 511 P2d 359 (1973), at least without further analysis than the majority affords the question.
In my view, the proper analysis here should focus upon the "inevitable discovery” rule. While upon the premises during the first search, the officers saw all three items whose seizure is here challenged. One of these items — the shotgun — was seized prematurely. But the evidence here shows convincingly that, had the shotgun been left alone, it would have been seized — properly—under the second warrant. See State v. Garrison 21 Or App 155. 157, 534 P2d 210, rev den (1975). I would decide the case on that basis.