Court Opinion

ID: 9683586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:32:33.045119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.916849
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result and in that part of the opinion in which it is determined that the complaint filed January 8, 1964, was sufficient on its face to support the issuance of the warrant and the detention thereunder of defendant in error. I also agree that defendant in error can raise, by motion to suppress in the criminal action, his claim that his own testimony in the John Doe proceeding was illegally obtained. Should the alleged invalidity of *620the John Doe proceeding become material on the merits of the action, he can pursue his challenges then.
I feel, however, that I must respectfully record a differing view in one particular. The opinion of the court, in deciding that the complaint which initiated the John Doe proceeding was apparently broad enough to authorize investigation of failure to report traffic violation convictions, appears to hold that where information upon which a criminal complaint is based came from a John Doe proceeding, such complaint could not authorize the issuance of a warrant unless the magistrate had had jurisdiction to investigate the type of offense alleged. It does not seem to me that any provision of the statute nor any consideration of fundamental fairness requires that view, and I would look only to the sufficiency of the criminal complaint upon which the warrant was issued.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Currie joins in this opinion.