explaining that California voters’ adoption of constitutional amendment ‘‘to dispense with exclusionary rules derived solely from the state [c]onstitution’’ rendered it ‘‘not reasonably likely that [they] intended to preserve, in the form of a statutory privilege, a judicially created exclusionary rule expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution’’ (emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that California voters’ adoption of constitutional amendment ‘‘to dispense with exclusionary rules derived solely from the state [c]onstitution’’ rendered it ‘‘not reasonably likely that [they] intended to preserve, in the form of a statutory privilege, a judicially created exclusionary rule expressly rejected by the United States Supreme Court under the federal constitution’’ (emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EAGLESON, J.
I concur in the judgment and in the majority’s holding that Disbrow has been abrogated by Proposition 8. However, I do not agree that Ramona R. was a decision that did no more than define the scope of the right against self-incrimination, since it clearly created a remedial exclusionary rule.