State v. Hewins

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in ruling that Hewins was collaterally estopped from arguing his motion to suppress. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding *118that the motion to suppress should have been granted, as I would not have reached the merits of the suppression motion because it was not ruled on by the lower court.

First, I agree with the majority that collateral estoppel does not apply. However, while the majority distinguishes Snow-don,8 I would go farther and hold that even had the facts of this case…