would grant the writ. The court of appeal has denied this application attacking a denial of a motion to suppress with the words “Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.” There is no adequate remedy if relator is forced to a trial and appeal if the search or seizure is illegal. The court of appeal should decide the application on the merits.

In re: Hennick, Roy K.; Palmer, Kathy M.; Hollingsworth, Deborah L.; Applying for Writ of Certiorari; Parish of St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 104-230; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number K-5959.

Denied.

assigns concurring reasons: I construe the court of appeal’s writ denial as indicating a considered examination of defendant’s writ application, a determination that defendant’s arguments are not so persuasive as to warrant the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction, and a determination that defendant should have an opportunity to raise the issue anew on appeal if convicted. Relator’s “adequate remedy by appeal” in event of conviction, a phrase sometimes used by this Court in the distant past under similar circumstances, should perhaps better be that “defendant may raise his complaint anew in the event of conviction.”