V.M. complains the ambiguity was created by the State's failure to adequately link the truancy determination to the search. Furthermore, V.M. argues, even if he was arrested, the search of the cigarette pack was impermissibly broad. We disagree with V.M.'s arguments. Because the trial court's decision to grant or deny the motion to suppress turned on the court's assessment of witness credibility and demeanor, we will review the record applying a deferential abuse of discretion standard of review. In the trial court, the burden of proof is on the State to prove the existence of probable cause to justify a warrantless arrest.
Probable cause is a flexible, common- sense standard.
A police officer may have probable cause for arrest if the totality of the circumstances within his knowledge is sufficient to warrant his reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Additionally, an officer is authorized to conduct a warrantless arrest for an offense committed in the officer's presence or within his view. The sufficiency of the evidence to prove the underlying offense is not an issue at the suppression hearing. The State must also prove the reasonableness of the warrantless search or seizure by a preponderance of the evidence. Reasonable searches include searches of the vehicle and any containers in the vehicle, whether open or closed, when a person is arrested who has recently been in an automobile.