Court Opinion

ID: 9689180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:23:06.29713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:45.811194
License: Public Domain

Sievers, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I write separately to make clear what it is about the actions of the police officers in this case which troubles me, even though I have voted to uphold the convictions and agree with Judge Mués’ well-reasoned and finely crafted opinion. These cases involve the trampling by police upon the constitutional rights of the “small fish” (Nancy Herman) in order to get' the “big fish” (the Valdezes). The record shows that even if Herman was properly stopped for *526investigation purposes under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), her vehicle was searched unlawfully — the search was not for weapons for officer safety. Instead it was a preplanned search undertaken by Officer Overman, who had contemplated and understood, but did not care about, its basic illegality. The purpose of the search of Herman’s vehicle — to get the “big fish” — has been accomplished, but our affirmance of the convictions is evidence only of our obligation to adhere to precedent from higher courts. Such adherence is fundamental to a coherent and efficient judicial system. Nonetheless, when police officers plan and scheme to ignore the constitutional rights of a citizen under a “the end result justifies the means” mentality, then bur most basic freedoms are at risk. The job of the police in our democratic society is bigger than just convicting “big fish” drug dealers. It also involves respecting and protecting the constitutional freedoms of all citizens. That the police set out to do the opposite in order to obtain a conviction is what troubles me.
Inbody, Judge, joins in this concurrence.