Court Opinion

ID: 9862270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:05:39.545158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:48.431103
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Arterburn, C.J.
I disagree with the majority opinion for the reason that no search is involved in this case, and there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents an officer or anyone else from picking up something from the street that has been abandoned or thrown away by a defendant or any third party. I go further and state that this includes articles thrown away in the act of excitement or fear, whatever the cause may be. In Von Hauger v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 666, 266 N. E. 2d 197, the defendant dropped a package containing hypodermic needles and other apparatus used in drug injections and walked away when he saw the law enforcement officers. We held that the evidence so obtained was admissible. In Mims et al. v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 439, 140 N. E. 2d 878, the defendants threw jewelry which they had recently stolen out of the automobile in which they were fleeing.- This was picked up by law enforcement officers. We held this sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction (See *520also Patterson v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 499, 262 N. E. 2d 520).
The defendant in this case was not searched nor seized. He was merely asked for his identification and driver’s license. I think a police officer, and particularly a traffic officer, has not only the right, but at times the duty, to ask for the driver’s license. In particular, I am thinking about road blocks that are necessary to be set up for the apprehension of fleeing criminals. Anything abandoned by fleeing persons is entirely open to seizure by anyone including police officers. The majority opinion is an unnecessary restriction upon law enforcement activities where a guilty conscience causes the party to flee or abandon articles which are incriminating. Again, I say there is no constitutional prohibition against the entry of the evidence which the appellant threw away or discarded in this case. It is an uncalled for stretching of the prohibition against unreasonable searches.
Note. — Reported in 269 N. E. 2d 874.