Court Opinion

ID: 9707383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:10:08.356486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:31.974862
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
Draper, J.
No search of the appellant’s premises was conducted. No property or “effect” of his was searched or seized. The automobile, which his wife owned, but which she permitted him to use, was examined and later taken away with her permission freely, knowingly and voluntarily given. There is no evidence whatever to the contrary. This case is entirely unlike such cases as Amos v. United States (1921), 255 U. S. 313, 41 S. Ct. 266, 65 L. Ed. 654, and Dearing v. *634State of Indiana (1948), 226 Ind. 273, 79 N. E. 2d 535. Those cases involve elements of implied coercion not present here. I think the evidence disclosed by the examination of the car was clearly admissible.
It seems to me the court has today approved the proposition that if A runs over B with a car borrowed from C, the police cannot examine the car and testify concerning it no matter how willingly C surrenders it to them. If this is the law in Indiana, I think it should be changed.
Jasper, J., concurs.
Note.—Reported in 105 N. E. 2d 509.