Court Opinion

ID: 9744300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:59:39.169386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.319513
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I find this case more similar to Massey v. State, 816 N.E.2d 979 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) than to Merritt, 808 N.E.2d 257. Accordingly, I would affirm the denial of Walker's motion to suppress.
In Merritt, the confidential informant was "in the location of" Merritt's home on one occasion when an unidentified black male offered to sell drugs to the informant. Id. at 258. No controlled buy occurred at Merritt's house to confirm the availability of drugs at that location. In this case, the controlled buy provided positive evidence drugs would be found at the barber shop; when the confidential informant went into the barber shop he did not have drugs on his person, and when he came out, he had a package of marijuana.
In Massey, the search warrant identified Massey by name and a confidential informant had seen drugs and guns in Massey's residence on more than one occasion. Therefore, we held, the affidavit did not indicate "the one-time interaction with an unknown dealer that occurred in Merritt." Massey, 816 N.E.2d at 988.
Here, although the search warrant affidavit does not identify Walker by name, the confidential informant had information drugs were being sold from the barber shop and police conducted a controlled buy at the barber shop. As in Massey, the affidavit indicated a reasonable probability *598drugs would be found at the barber shop when police returned.3
I would affirm Walker's convictions.

. Moreover, if the affidavit is insufficient to provide probable cause, I believe the controlled buy allowed the officers to rely on the search warrant in good faith. Accordingly, I would affirm Walker's convictions on that ground as well.