Court Opinion

ID: 9720678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:39:09.354572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.531611
License: Public Domain

McGregor, P. J.
(dissenting). This writer cannot tolerate nor give his tacit approval to the guard’s conduct in this case by allowing the. marijuana seized into evidence. If it were assumed at its inception that the guard’s actions were justified, in lunging at the defendant, administering several judo chops, forcibly twisting defendant’s arm in back of him, and further wrestling the packet from his hand, the seizure was in no way related in scope to any circumstances which may have justified the initial interference.
On the basis of the record presented, the guard’s actions were utterly lacking in foundation and constituted an egregious intrusion upon defendant’s person. Evidence seized by methods which offend “a sense of justice” ought not be admissible in state trials. See Rochin v. California (1952), 342 US 165, 173 (72 S Ct 205, 210; 96 L Ed 183, 190; 25 ALR2d 1396, 1403), referring to Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 US 278 (56 S Ct 461, 80 L Ed 682).
As Justices Holmes and Brandéis aptly stated in their dissent in Burdeau v. McDowell (1921), 256 US 465, 477 (41 S Ct 574, 576, 577; 65 L Ed 1048, 1051):
“Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man’s sense of decency and fair play.”
Alternatively, I would remand this matter to the lower court for further findings and a determination as to whether the peace officers were responsible *377for the seizure of the marijuana. The record is unclear in several respects. It does not properly demonstrate why the officers were called to the scene nor does it properly relate the sequences of events following the seizure of the packet by the guard, e.g., whether the guard knew the substance of the packet and related its contents to the peace officers when they arrived or whether the peace officers actually opened the packet and learned of its contents. Possibly if the latter were the situation, the responsibility for the search and seizure may have been that of the peace officers.