State v. Freeman (Dissent)

Summary

Keller, J., dissenting, would conclude that the state exercised due diligence by taking all necessary preparatory steps to execute the defendant's arrest warrant before the statute of limitations expired. She would hold that the subsequent five- or seven-day delay was not unreasonable given the defendant's incarceration and the coordination required among multiple agencies. The dissent would affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss and criticizes the majority for effectively requiring the state to prove that it did everything possible to execute the warrant before the limitations period expired.