Court Opinion

ID: 9714749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:44:50.100792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.352887
License: Public Domain

Sheran, Justice
(dissenting).
The implicit premise of the majority opinion is that the right of privacy of persons who use toilet facilities provided by a place of business is offended by a surveillance of the kind here involved and, this being the case, evidence obtained with respect to illegal activities by persons using these facilities for improper purposes should not be received in court lest such distasteful procedures be encouraged by acceptance of their evidentiary product.
I disagree only because, in my view, persons who use places of this kind for illegal activities which subvert the object of the owner’s invitation should not be allowed to shield their perversions by appealing to the court’s proper concern for the rights of others not involved in the prosecution.