Court Opinion

ID: 9603808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:09:53.591741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.482558
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent from the result reached by the majority. I do so solely on the ground that in my view, the trial court did not commit legal error when it concluded that under all the circumstances, the officers lacked probable cause to continue the search after the consent was withdrawn. While I might not have reached the same conclusion, I cannot conclude that the decision reached falls outside the permissible definition of “probable cause” as established in our ease law. Therefore, we should affirm the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 982 (1994).
I also note a point of disagreement with Justice Durham’s separate dissent. I most emphatically do not read the majority opinion as establishing the per se rule which the State initially sought and then abandoned during oral argument: that the mere presence of any hidden compartment in any vehicle, without more, constitutes probable cause. Instead, I read the majority opinion as holding only that under the facts of this case, the trial court erred in concluding that there was no probable cause for the search.