recognizing that “the only indirectly acquired evidence that should be suppressed is that which was acquired by an exploitation of the unconstitutional intrusion”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “the only indirectly acquired evidence that should be suppressed is that which was acquired by an exploitation of the unconstitutional intrusion”
- "To a large degree the determination of whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy depends upon the location or situs of that individual at the time of the questioned search.”
- ―[E]ven assuming the acquisition of the indirectly acquired evidence was illegal it should not be excluded if it was obtained independent of the initial illegality.‖
- discussing Colonnade Catering, 397 U.S. at 72, 90 S.Ct. 774
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority today carves out an exception in the law which can apply only to big name entertainers. Such preferential treatment reduces the Fourth Amendment to nothing more than hollow words and demeans all our rights to equality under the law. Not only does the record before us fail to demonstrate any reasonable expectation of privacy in the defendant, the majority opinion destroys the entire spirit of the regulatory function of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. To such preferential and distorted application of the law, I most vigorously dissent.