Court Opinion

ID: 9521986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:16:19.551034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:09.704008
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
The information supplied the officers by the Indianapolis informant was based upon a conversation which he had overheard. It was not therefore based upon his personal observation of non-verbal conduct. The information supplied by the Chicago informant was that he saw occupants of the car enter and leave a known drug distribution center and head for Indianapolis. This information, later verified in part by the officers' observations on the highway, did not I believe provide the officers with probable cause to make an arrest or to search the car, but was instead sufficient only to justify the initial investigatory stop of the car. Elliott v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 413, 317 N.E.2d 173. The subsequent conduct of appellant and his companions comprising the chase provided full probable cause. Furthermore, Officer Haryey testified at trial that he observed the man riding in the back seat lean out the window of the car and rip open bags and dump out powder. Chambers was identified as the passenger in the rear seat. This was sufficient along with the rest to put him in the conspiracy.