Court Opinion

ID: 9511892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:09:15.496089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:13.855012
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WARNER
dissents.
¶122 I emphatically agree with the dissent of Justice Rice. The only real world result of the Court’s decision today will be to increase the use of a perpetrator’s home for all types of criminal transactions.
¶123 For the sake of safety, law enforcement might opt to continue equipping officers and citizen informants with electronic transmitting devices when they undertake the dangerous task of securing evidence against drug dealers, white-slavers and other offenders, who naturally decline to conduct their flagitious business out in the open. It is possible that such recordings could be used in redirect examination. U.S. v. Burns, 432 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005). And, in the event a criminal defendant chooses to testify and contradicts the testimony of a State’s witness to a criminal transaction, a recording of what actually happened might come in handy for impeachment purposes. See e.g. U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 910, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3414 (1984); Walder v. U.S., 347 U.S. 62, 65, 74 S. Ct. 354, 356 (1954); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226, 91 S. Ct. 643, 646 (1971).