Court Opinion

ID: 9731766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:57:28.034563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:21.064739
License: Public Domain

*510CONCURRING OPINION
Buchanan, J.
I concur in the result only in this case because, in my opinion, the heroin was properly seized pursuant to an investigative stop and search of the vehicle which was reasonable on the basis of facts known to the officer at that time . . . relying on Luckett v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 174, 284 N.E.2d 738, Williams v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 547, 307 N.E.2d 457 and Elliott v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 413, 317 N.E.2d 173. Therefore, I would predicate the affirmance as to the admissibility of the heroin seized by the officer without necessarily relying on any other reason.
Correspondingly, I do not agree with the majority that “persuasive arguments could be framed for opposing views on the legality of the seizure . . or any other inference that the heroin was improperly admitted into evidence.
Note. — Reported 333 N.E.2d 141.