Court Opinion

ID: 9721409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:58:30.400599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.556734
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority, except I cannot agree however in the majority’s analysis of the issue regarding the question on the return of Higginbotham’s driver’s license.
The question regarding the return of Higginbotham’s driver’s license is totally irrelevant to the issue of his intoxication and could serve only to confuse the jury. The fact that the license was returned does not indicate in any way that the police officer believed Higginbotham was not intoxicated. The police officer had no choice in the matter inasmuch as there is no statute giving an officer the authority to confiscate a driver’s license. The power to suspend or revoke a driver’s license lies with the commissioner of the bureau of motor vehicles and not with an individual police officer. Since the officer had no discretion in the return of the driver’s license, his action could not be used to either impeach his testimony concerning Hig-ginbotham’s intoxication or to rebut the prima facie intoxication standard of IC 1971, 9 — 4-l-54(b)(4)(A).