Court Opinion

ID: 9689558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:40:18.808988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.342085
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with my sister Coleman’s opinion that the prophylactic exclusionary rule need not, and should not, be extended to cover this case. However, while I agree that the assistant prosecuting attorney’s action did not rise to the level of a violation of due process of law, I disagree that his action was "innocuous”. I would affirm but order the Clerk to report this matter to bar grievance authorities for appropriate action.
The "prophylactic exclusionary rule” is an indirect method to deter wrongful police action. Since the courts have no effective direct method of disciplining police officers, this indirect method, which costs the public a retrial, has been justified.
However, with respect to attorneys, including prosecuting attorneys, the courts do have a direct method of discipline to deter their wrongful action. Attorneys can be disciplined by the bar grievance *297authorities, and the courts can refer attorneys to them for appropriate action.
Therefore, to deter future action as here committed, without burdening the public criminal justice system with a retrial, and to directly reach the alleged wrongdoer, I would order the Clerk to report the assistant prosecuting attorney’s action in this matter to the grievance authorities for appropriate action.
Fitzgerald, J., concurred with Williams, J.