Court Opinion

ID: 9860725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:31:02.745311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:34.519706
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The recitation of facts found in the majority opinion and the cases cited therein indicates the majority has engaged in strained rationalization to overturn both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion’s statement that there are no facts in the record to support the trial judge’s decision. To arrive at this decision, the majority appears to hold that the officers had no right to rely on the word of the informant as to what transpired inside the home at the time the informant made the buy. The majority opinion also indicates there was no evidence to support the officers belief that there was a probability that evidence was being destroyed inside the house.
The evidence recited in the majority opinion clearly shows that there in fact was evidence to be weighed by the trial eourt concerning these elements in the case. Contrary to the record, the majority holds that there is a total lack of evidence to support the trial court. We have reiterated over and over that we will not reweigh the evidence in this Court. If there is evidence to support the decision of the trial court it will not be disturbed, such is the case at bar. Miller v. State (1991), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 578.
This case clearly comes within the exception to the requirement of a warrant where exigent circumstances are involved. This rule of law is clearly recognized in the majority opinion but then totally ignored. The entry without a warrant clearly was justified in this case. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to reach the second portion of the majority opinion wherein it is held that the warrant which was later issued was issued without probable cause. However, here again, I would respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Even if one would accept for the sake of argument that the entry was illegal, the court issuing the warrant still had an abundance of probable cause based upon the buy by the informant to issue the warrant.
I cannot agree with the strained rationalization of the majority opinion to reach the conclusion that the warrant was improperly issued. Here again, is a finding of fact by the trial judge which should not be disturbed.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.