State v. Forbush

¶ 118.

{dissenting).

I lament the fact that three justices, each in a separate written opinion, take three divergent avenues in a futile effort to uphold the Dagnall rule and suppress statements Forbush voluntarily made to police. These varying approaches leave more questions than answers. Justice Roggensack, in her effort to save the Dagnall *674rule, employs an extremely narrow reading of Montejo, ignoring an entire section of that decision, in order to extract only the language and principles that support her position. Her attempt to minimize the effect of a United States Supreme Court decision…