Opinion

State v. Brown

  • 708 S.W.2d 140
  • 1986 Mo. LEXIS 280
Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Filed
Apr 15, 1986
Status
Published
Author
Donnelly
On the bench
Rendlen, Manford, Blackmar, Billings, Higgins, Black-Mar, Welliver, Donnelly, Robertson
Cited by
17 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.3%

The opinion

DONNELLY, Judge,

dissenting.

Article I, § 15 of the Constitution of Missouri provides “[t]hat the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, home and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures....”

In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), and Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), the United States Supreme Court articulated The Exclusionary Rule (which holds that evidence obtained by illegal search is not admissible at trial when timely objection is made).

In State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348 , 259 S.W. 100 (banc 1924), a case which did not involve the United States Constitution, The Exclusionary Rule was adopted as Missouri law.

Today, the principal opinion confirms that the Owens rule was “implicitly modified” in a footnote in Sweeney.

This may be the most cavalier treatment ever given by this Court to a question of such importance.

In such circumstance, I make two tentative observations:

(1) that a search is unreasonable only when it is pretextual; and

(2) that we should overrule Owens and wash our hands of The Exclusionary Rule except as it may implicate the provision “[t]hat no person shall be compelled to *149 testify against himself in a criminal cause-” Mo. Const, art. I, § 19.

I dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.