Court Opinion

ID: 9504709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:57:38.62607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:06.909961
License: Public Domain

Young, J.
(dissenting). I agree with Justice Cavanagh that Officer Greenleaf’s actions in examining the photographs he removed from defendant’s pocket did not meet Fourth Amendment requirements. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
As Justice Cavanagh explains in his dissent, ante at 367-368, “once the officer removed the photographs from the defendant’s pocket, it became clear that the *374object removed was not in fact cardboard. At that moment, the justification supporting the seizure, that the object was immediately identifiable as contraband, no longer existed.” In my view, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321; 107 S Ct 1149; 94 L Ed 2d 347 (1987), any continued examination of the photographs, however cursory, required additional justification that simply is not present here.
Because I believe that the trial court properly suppressed the photographs as well as the evidence obtained during the subsequent search of defendant’s residence, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.