Court Opinion

ID: 9723531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:18:48.886776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:06.273477
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, J.
I concur in part I of the majority opinion for the reasons stated therein. I concur in the result with regard to part II on the ground that while it would have been better practice to include in the affidavit a more particularized statement as to the basis for Dunlap’s belief that certain items belonged to semiconductor companies other than Intel and that they had been stolen, the affidavit contains sufficient indicia of reliability and credibility to support the second warrant. I would not sustain the seizure of these items on the alternative basis of the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, except as to the nine reticles which contained the Intel logo, and which Dunlap so identified to the officers.
The petition of real parties in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 18, 1980. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.