Court Opinion

ID: 9532418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:21:04.201788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:45.624177
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Sullivan, J.
I concur in the result reached in the opinion by Presiding Judge Buchanan and in his treatment of Issues Two and Three. I cannot, however, agree with his framing of Issue One nor in the treatment accorded that “Issue”. The primary opinion states Issue One to be:
“Did Officer Robertson’s warrantless search of the open convertible constitute an illegal search and seizure, thereby requiring suppression of the cellophane package obtained from that search and seizure?”
Quite concisely I do not view the case before us as a “search” case at all. Consequently, in my opinion it does not involve “probable cause for a search”, nor does it involve whether the Privilege against unlawful search is personal to the owner or possessor of the premises or property searched.
*377The evidence of record in the matter before us quite clearly shows that the convertible was open, and that the cellophane packet was dropped “into the back seat”. The officer retrieved it from the rear floor board of the automobile.
Thus, notwithstanding that the State mistakes the nature of the facts and argues the issue as a “justified search”, the law relative to “search” is simply not applicable. It is not a “search” case. Rather, the “plain view” doctrine is applicable and such latter doctrine is the justification for the seizure of the packet in question. Alcorn v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 491, 265 N.E.2d 413; Ford v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 498, 275 N.E.2d 808; Deering v. State (1972), 152 Ind. App. 650, 284 N.E.2d 553.