Court Opinion

ID: 9845859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:29:32.251715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:23.820526
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
An opinion was issued by this Court on January 11, 1965, reversing this cause, with instructions to the district court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, to dismiss the case so appealed. Thereafter counsel for the State filed a petition for rehearing, and oral argument was granted on said petition.
We have carefully considered the argument presented, and have reviewed the record and briefs filed herein. Nevertheless, we feel that the conclusion reached in that opinion is correct. This conclusion is in line with Simmons v. State, Okl.Cr., 277 P.2d 196, wherein this Court held in the second paragraph of the syllabus:
“A search and seizure illegal in its inception cannot become legalized by what it brings to light; its legality must be determined by the situation as disclosed before the search was made.”
See also Edwards v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 340, 177 P.2d 143.
It is therefore the finding of the Court that the petition for rehearing is not well taken, and that the same should be in all things denied, and the Clerk of this Court directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
The petition for rehearing is denied, and the Court Clerk is directed to issue the mandate without delay.