# State v. Michaels

> Washington Supreme Court · September 28, 1962 · 60 Wash. 2d 638

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547027

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. George A. Michaels, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 28, 1962
- **Citations:** 60 Wash. 2d 638; 374 P.2d 989; 1962 Wash. LEXIS 351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Finley
- **Judges:** Rosellini, Finley, Ott, Hill, Weaver
- **Cited by:** 103 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated in part, on other grounds by State v. Ringer, 100 Wash. 2d 686 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547027

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing conviction for illegal possession of gambling devices, and suppressing evidence obtained in auto search incident to pretextual arrest for failure to give turn signal

## Opinion text

Finley, C. J.
(concurring in the result) — For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in State v. Rousseau (1952), 40 Wn. (2d) 92, 241 P. (2d) 447 , I am opposed to the rule which requires the exclusion or nonuse of evidence or information acquired through illegal arrest or search and seizure. At the time of the Rousseau case, the exclusionary rule was based upon Washington case law originating with State v. Buckley (1927), 145 Wash. 87 , 258 Pac. 1030 . However, the United States Supreme Court has recently stated in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U. S. 643, 657 , 6 L. Ed. (2d) 1081, 81 S. Ct. 1684 , “. . . the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. . . . ” I feel compelled to accede to the ratio decidendi of the Mapp case, and consequently on this basis I concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547027. Public record. Not legal advice.