Writ denied. As to issue 1: The trial court was in error in refusing to permit the Kaese search warrant and affidavit into evidence. The relator was adversely affected and had standing to contest the validity of the Kaese search. La.Const. Art. 1, Sec. 5 (1974); State v. Culotta, 343 So.2d 977 (La. 1976); State v. Herbert, 351 So.2d 434 (La. 1977) (docket No. 58,726, opinion on rehearing rendered October 10, 1977). However, on examining the affidavit and warrant, which are attached to the proceedings, we find that the affidavit adequately establishes probable cause for the search. As to issue 2: We are unable to find error in the trial court's holding that the uncontradicted testimony of the prosecutor and of Kaese's attorney establishes that no plea bargain was entered into before Kaese's testimony at the trial (or to date), and that the Kaese bargaining discussions commenced only after the relator was convicted.
[5] MARCUS, J., concurs in the denial of this writ.
See my dissenting opinion in State v. Herbert, No. 58,726 (La. Oct. 10, 1977), 351 So.2d 434.
[2] SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion writ should be denied, but does not agree that the trial judge was in error in refusing to permit the Kaese search.
DIXON, J., is of the opinion that the affidavit did not connect Kaese with a drug transaction and did not set out probable cause to support a search warrant to search Kaese's apartment, and would grant.
CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion that the writ should be granted.