suspicion or “hunch,” but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Id. The record shows that Officers Patton and Stevenson believed they were on the lookout for a fleeing suspect who had just been involved in a robbery. Although there is no evidence in this record that a robbery had in fact occurred, Officer Lewis had broadcast that he thought a robbery had occurred or was about to occur. It was this information to which Officers Patton and Stevenson were reacting. Whether Officer Lewis was reasonably justified in his belief concerning a possible robbery suspect has no bearing on whether his fellow officers were entitled to rely upon his representation. See Moody v. State, 448 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind.1983) (<HOLDING>); see also Russell v. State, 519 N.E.2d 549,
holding that a receiver is not liable for loss resulting from his good faith reliance on the advice of counsel holding that where police officers act in good faith reliance on a radio dispatch that a crime has been committed there is no need to show that the source of the dispatchers information is rehable holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith holding that it is not known legally that an offense has been committed until there is a conviction holding that the requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met  if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court