Court Opinion

ID: 9755200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:30:03.468533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:04.896776
License: Public Domain

TAMILA, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. While much of what the majority concludes is correct, it errs when it refuses to acknowledge that information which might not support probable cause for a search warrant, when enhanced by surveillance and verification, will support a later arrest. This procedure is not at all uncommon and the majority’s holding, if universally applied, will hamstring police in effectively dealing with the highly mobile and pervasive traffic in drugs.
*613Once the police verified the activity, information of which was supplied by the informant, they were permitted to make a Terry1 type stop based on suspicion alone. Following the stop, upon detecting the odor of P.C.P. in the car, they were permitted to go further and pat down the persons for safety reasons. When the pat down disclosed packets, these were not to be ignored and their emission of the odor of P.C.P. entitled the police to proceed further with a more extensive search and arrest.
I would affirm the trial court and deny appellant’s request for a new trial.

. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).