Court Opinion

ID: 9676619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:28:41.696566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:41.714093
License: Public Domain

SHORT, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The trial court’s suppression order is clearly erroneous because respondent’s statements were voluntary and the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) were followed. Even if the trial court was correct in suppressing respondent’s statements, the suppression order must be reversed because it is too broad and takes the derivative evidence rule beyond its useful limits. The deterrence value of excluding all evidence derived from this alleged Robinson violation is negligible at best where the St. Louis Park police had no reason to suspect respondent had committed other offenses and would not have questioned him concerning those activities absent his impromptu confession. At the very least, this case should be remanded for trial on the evidence that was not “compelled testimony” of respondent.