Court Opinion

ID: 9700717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:46:43.163239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:22.238612
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result. I see no need of discussing the question of admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search. That question is not involved here. Furthermore, the so-called “modem cases” are directly contrary to the rule we follow in this state. The case of United States v. Coplon (2 Cir.) 185 F. (2d) 629, 28 A. L. R. (2d) 1041, certiorari denied, 342 U. S. 920, 72 S. Ct. 362, 96 L. ed. 688, was decided in 1950. Our case of City of St. Paul v. Stovall, 225 Minn. 309, 30 N. W. (2d) 638, was decided in 1948. One is about as modem as the other. Petitioner has not raised the question of admissibility of evidence, nor could it be raised in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus.