The opinion
MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting:
I dissent. The majority, although recognizing that deterrence of unconstitutional police conduct is only one of two reasons for the existence of the exclusionary rule, completely ignores the other, and in my opinion, the more important reason, “the imperative of judicial integrity” (Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 , 4 L. Ed. 2d 1669, 1680 , 80 S. Ct. 1437, 1447 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1092 , 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1694 ). Unless the fourth amendment to the Federal Constitution and section 6 of article I of our State Constitution are to be reduced “to a form of words” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 64 L. Ed. 319, 321 , 40 S. Ct. 182, 183 ) they must' be interpreted to mean that evidence seized in violation of their provisions is not only not to be used in a “criminal prosecution” but “that it shall not be used at all.” 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 64 L. Ed. 319, 321 , 40 S. Ct. 182,183 .
The sovereign should never, under any circumstances, be permitted to make use of evidence obtained as the result of its own unlawful acts. The dangers inherent in the failure to adhere to that rule were stated far more eloquently than can I in Mr. Justice Brandéis’ dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 , 72 L. Ed. 944, 959-60 , 48 S. Ct. 564, 575 , wherein he said: .
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Govern- . ment becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction óf a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”