Court Opinion

ID: 9467462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:49:24.328583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:21.533097
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Chief Judge,
concurring.
Our panel unanimously holds that the conviction in this case must be affirmed because of the validity of the search warrant as outlined in Judge Jones’ opinion, and the nature of the evidence produced as a result of the search warrant.
I also concur in Judge Jones’ analysis of the original entry, and agree that since the arrest had been effectuated on the porch, there was neither necessity nor exigent circumstances under Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), nor consent, actual or implied, to authorize the warrantless entry.
I am afraid I regard my colleagues’ discussion of the sweep search issue as dicta, as to which I feel no need to comment1 beyond observing that where the entry is unlawful, any subsequent search is clearly unlawful also.

. I have previously stated my views on the protective search issue in the context of a case where there was lawful entry. See United States v. Chapman, 549 F.2d 1075, 1078-79 (6th Cir. 1977).