Court Opinion

ID: 9534773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:42.511431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:32.457618
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
While we may find it unduly harsh to subject a driver with a small amount of cocaine in his pocket to forfeiture of his automobile, I believe that is clearly what the legislature has authorized. The presence of the cocaine in Mr. Katner's pocket constituted the commission of Possession of Cocaine and his driving his automobile under such cireumstances therefore constituted the use of the vehicle to facilitate the transportation of cocaine for the purpose of possessing it. As such, forfeiture is available. Ind.Code § 34-4-830.1-1(a)(1)(A)(vi).
I would affirm the trial court's forfeiture order in this case for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Sharpnack's dissenting opinion in this case in the Court of Appeals. See Katner v. State (1994), Ind.App., 640 N.E.2d 388, 391 (Sharpnack, C.J., dissenting).