Court Opinion

ID: 9740185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:29:29.960993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:16.658453
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). This case presents a very close question, but we review the trial court’s ruling under the "clearly erroneous” stan*270dard. I would say that the trial court’s ruling in this case is not clearly erroneous.
Since the majority agrees that the initial stop was justified, the plain view doctrine was properly invoked and certainly the officer's suspicions were properly aroused.
The defendant had exited from a closed construction yard in the early hours of Sunday morning. He was visibly perspiring. The officer saw a prybar, a flashlight, cotton gloves, a screwdriver and three plastic bags of magazines and boxes of movies. It seems to me a short detention to determine if two nearby businesses, a bookstore and a theater, had been burglarized was justifiable under the circumstances. See United States v Richards, 500 F2d 1025 (CA 9, 1974). This is more an example of good police work than of an unwarranted, unconstitutional intrusion on the defendant’s right to privacy. I do not think the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous. I believe leave to appeal was unwarranted and I would remand this case for trial.