Court Opinion

ID: 9883833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:21:58.941233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.983875
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, P.J.
{dissenting). A telephone call from an anonymous informant is not sufficient to justify the war-rantless entry of an occupied home by a government agent. The purpose of the fourth amendment could too easily be subverted by alleged anonymous calls. I therefore cannot agree with the majority holding, regardless of my disgust for the defendant and his wife or my sympathy for the victims. When balanced against society’s need to preserve the protection provided by the fourth amendment, the court must subordinate even the possibility of further harm to children. The responsibility for any harm lies not with the law, but with the anonymous informant who refused to get involved.
Because Hammel and McMahon had no right to be in the defendant’s home where they heard his statements, his statements should be suppressed. This does not, however, preclude the children from testifying. I also would not necessarily suppress the observations that were made of the children who, unlike other physical evidence, could move out of the home on their own to a place where they could be legally observed. As every parent knows, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in young children.