Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lake County Mental Health Department v. Susan T.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1994No. S035032Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*1021MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

Like the majority, I would have no difficulty concluding, under the facts presented, that the entry of an employee of the Lake County Department of Mental Health into Susan T.’s home to “take some pictures as evidence” constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. I also concur in the judgment, because, like the Court of Appeal, I believe the admission of the photographic evidence was harmless error. Unlike the majority, however, I conclude that the exclusionary rule should apply in conservatorship proceedings under the Lanterman-PetrisShort Act (LPS…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  4. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. People v. WendeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API