Court Opinion

ID: 9578085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:41:17.584058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:35.973418
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The reasons advanced by the majority for not applying the exclusionary rule to probation revocation proceedings are not persuasive to me. The long line of federal cases holding as inadmissible evidence obtained by illegal search compels the conclusion that this court’s balancing of benefits test cannot be sustained.
The rehabilitative goal of probation is no greater reason for admission of illegally obtained evidence than the other great concerns involved in any criminal prosecution. The United States Supreme Court has ruled illegally seized evidence is inadmissible. Until that court changes its position we are bound by the principles set forth in their decisions.
I believe that State v. Shirley, 117 Ariz. 105, 570 P.2d 1278 (App.1977) is correct in its holding that the exclusionary rule is applicable to probation revocation proceedings. I would reverse the order of the trial court revoking appellant’s probation.
GORDON, Justice (dissenting):
I concur in the dissent of Vice Chief Justice HOLOHAN.