Case Name: John J. CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-12-10
Citations: 497 So. 2d 253
Docket Number: No. 82-2565
Parties: John J. CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 497
Pages: 253–267

Head Matter:
John J. CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-2565.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 10, 1985.
On Motions for Rehearing Nov. 18,1986 and Jan. 27,1987.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
NESBITT, Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction of third degree murder, armed burglary and armed robbery without a firearm. We reverse.
The first issue raised by the defendant that we will consider is whether the trial court erred in allowing a prior consistent statement of one of the witnesses to be introduced through the testimony of Detective Parmenter, the lead investigator on this case. To fully resolve this issue, we must consider all the evidence and testimony presented while resolving all conflicts in favor of the prevailing party, the state.
Judy Trevino was the manager of a Sam-bo's restaurant in Naranja Lakes. The body of the homicide victim was discovered by Trevino in the early morning of February 25, 1981, in a trailer which she had shared with the victim. The victim had been a cook at the Sambo's restaurant managed by Trevino. On the night of the incident, Trevino left for the restaurant at about 9:30 p.m. When she returned at 12:30 a.m., Trevino found the trailer in disarray, numerous items missing, and then discovered the victim's body. The victim's automobile, a brown 1969 Cadillac, was missing from the driveway, where it had been when Trevino had left for work.
The victim died as the result of a single gunshot wound to the left side of the neck, probably inflicted while he was sleeping. Metro-Dade detectives determined that the entry into the trailer had been made through a window of the master bedroom. They discovered a ladder leaning against the wall outside the bedroom. A paper bag containing a Sambo's uniform was found at the base of the ladder.
The uniform in the paper bag was identified as belonging to the defendant who had begun working at Sambo's about four days earlier. The defendant had just moved into a trailer with Rudy Martin, another Sam-bo's employee. Martin's trailer was located about 300 yards from Trevino's trailer.
Martin's testimony indicated that on the night of the homicide, the defendant left their trailer on his way to work at about 9:30 p.m. The defendant left on foot, as the restaurant was only about four blocks away, and he left carrying his Sambo's uniform in a paper bag. The defendant never reported to work that night. At about 11:00 p.m., the defendant returned to Martin's trailer without the bag and he was not wearing his uniform. The defendant informed Martin he was going to live with his brother and proceeded to gather his belongings. The defendant gave Martin the key to the trailer and departed. Martin testified that just prior to the defendant's return to the trailer he had heard a car drive up, and that when the defendant left the trailer, he heard a car door close and a car drive away. Martin described the car as having "long, skinny taillights . [and] it looked like a Cadillac."
Glenn Brown, a neighbor of Trevino, testified that he heard a gunshot at approximately 10:00 p.m., February 24, 1981. Upon hearing the shot, Brown went outside his trailer and looked up and down the street. While on the street, Brown saw what he described as a small male's hand twice reach out of the doorway of Trevino's trailer and pull the open door closed. Brown returned to' his trailer and shortly thereafter he heard the victim's Cadillac crank up. He indicated that he recognized the sound of the car because "[i]t had a loud sound to it. Like a bad muffler_" He also indicated that the car sped off in the direction of Martin's trailer.
In addition to this testimony, the state introduced into evidence a pocketknife seized from the defendant when he was arrested in New York. This knife was identified as belonging to the victim and was last seen in the possession of the victim on the afternoon of February 24, 1981. Fingerprints had been lifted during the initial investigation but none matched the defendant's fingerprints. None of the property stolen the night of the homicide was ever recovered. The jury returned verdicts against the defendant finding him guilty of third degree murder, armed burglary and robbery without a firearm.
It is obvious that Rudy Martin's testimony was crucial to the state's case. It was his testimony which indicated that the defendant had left that evening with his uniform in a paper bag; that he had returned later that night without his uniform to gather his belongings and vacate the trailer; and that he left in a car that "looked like a Cadillac." Martin's testimony tied together several elements of the state's case and was an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence upon which the case against the defendant was based. Martin's testimony at trial, however, was far from consistent.
Martin suffers from a learning disability. He testified at trial that he sometimes has trouble remembering things and expressing himself. At a competency hearing held outside the presence of the jury, the court determined that Martin was competent to testify and could give truthful testimony. The court, however, called Martin as a court witness "in the interest of justice" to allow both sides some latitude in asking leading questions because of Martin's problems with expressing himself.
It is clear from our reading of Martin's testimony that he was highly susceptible to suggestion. On direct examination, Martin testified that he "saw [the defendant] put the uniform in the bag" just prior to the defendant leaving for work with the paper bag on February 24, 1981. In addition, Martin testified that the car outside his trailer when the defendant later returned "looked like it was a Cadillac" because "[i]t had long, skinny taillights." On cross-examination, Martin testified that the defendant "walked out with a paper bag and I saw him put something in it. I don't know what he put in it. It could have been the uniform. It could have been something else." With regard to the car, Martin testified on cross-examination as follows:
Q. Isn't it true that you told the police that you didn't know what type of car it was?
A. I didn't know at the time, no.
Q. So at that time you didn't know what type of car it was?
A. I knew it was a Cadillac that [the victim] had.
Q. But you didn't know what type of car you thought [the defendant] might have driven away in; did you?
A. No.
Q. You testified a minute ago that you know — knew for a fact that it was a Cadillac; right?
A. Yes, it was a Cadillac.
Q. But you just testified that you didn't know what type of car it was; right?
A. Yeah.
Q. So you don't know; do you?
A. No.
On re-direct, the following, colloquy took place:
Q. Did you see [the defendant] pick up a brown uniform and put it in a bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, Rudy, my question is: Did you see [the defendant]?
A. Yes, I saw him. I don't know if he put the top or bottom in the bag.
Q. But you saw him put the uniform in the bag?
A. Yes.
Q. You're sure about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Positive?
A. Yeah.
Q. Were you mistaken a few moments ago when you told [defense counsel] that you weren't sure what was in the bag?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You're sure now?
A. Yes, sir.
On re-cross-examination:
Q. But you don't know what he put in that bag?
A. I think it was a uniform.
Q. But you don't know; do you?
A. I think it was a uniform.
Because of Martin's obvious susceptibility to suggestion, defense counsel during cross-examination raised an implication that the police, when initially questioning Martin, may have unwittingly planted certain information in Martin's mind which at trial he remembered as fact.
In an attempt to bolster Martin's credibility, therefore, the state called Detective Parmenter as a witness immediately after Martin and elicited from the detective statements Martin had given to him on the morning following the homicide. Over the defendant's objection, Parmenter testified that he had spoken with Martin on the morning after the homicide and Martin had told him that the defendant had picked up his uniform and put it in a plain paper bag and left with the bag for work the evening before. In addition, Parmenter testified that Martin had told him that on the defendant's second departure from the trailer that night, the defendant had left in a car with long taillights like a Cadillac.
Prior to the admission of this testimony, defense counsel objected, apparently on the unstated ground of hearsay. The objection was initially sustained and counsel for both the state and the defendant went into a discussion with the court at side-bar. During this side-bar conference, the state argued to the trial court that the testimony was admissible as a prior consistent statement under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court apparently agreed and overruled the objection allowing the testimony into evidence. On appeal, the defendant claims the admission of this testimony improperly permitted the state to bolster the testimony of a critical witness with his prior consistent statement. The state's only colorable argument on appeal in support of the admission of the testimony is that it was admissible under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
The well established rule in Florida is that a witness' trial testimony may not be corroborated by his own prior consistent statement. Van Gallon v. State, 50 So.2d 882 (Fla.1951); McElveen v. State, 415 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Holliday v. State, 389 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Perez v. State, 371 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Lamb v. State, 357 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Brown v. State, 344 So.2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Roti v. State, 334 So.2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Kellam v. Thomas, 287 So.2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Allison v. State, 162 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). The purpose behind the evolution of this rule was stated by the court in Allison:
The salutary nature and the necessity of such a rule are clearly apparent upon reflection in cases like the present, for without that rule a witness's testimony could be blown up out of all proportion to its true probative force by telling the same story out of court before a group of reputable citizens, who would then parade onto the witness stand and repeat the statement time and again until the jury might easily forget that the truth of the statement was not backed by those citizens but was solely founded upon the integrity of the said witness. This danger would seem to us to be especially acute in a criminal case . when the . previous out-of-court statement is repeated before the jury by . law enforcement officers.
162 So.2d at 924. In Perez, the court also recognized this particularly acute danger:
The rationale prohibiting the use of prior consistent statements is to prevent "putting a cloak of credibility" on the witness's testimony. [citation omitted] When a police officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible, is the corroborating witness, the danger of improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave.
371 So.2d at 716-17.
As with most "general" rules, the inadmissibility of prior consistent statements has been subject to exceptions. It has been generally held that when an attempt has been made to impeach the credibility of a witness, and the basis of the impeachment is such that, in fairness to the witness, evidence of a prior consistent statement would tend to weaken or destroy the force of the impeaching evidence, an exception to the general rule was applicable. Kellam, 287 So.2d at 734. Thus, exceptions to the general rule developed with regard to cases where the impeachment was based upon: recent fabrication; bias, interest, corruption or other motive to falsify when the prior consistent statement was made before the existence of the motive; and prior inconsistent statements when there was an issue of whether the prior inconsistent statement was ever actually made. See Kellam. With the adoption of the Florida Evidence Code, the exceptions became the rule. See § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979). Section 90.801(2)(b) provides:
A statement is not hearsay if the de-clarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is:
Consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication....
After reviewing the cross-examination and the testimony of the declarant, Martin, we find that there was an implied charge of improper influence by the police upon Martin, but only in one exchange that occurred on re-cross-examination:
Q. Did the police tell you there was a Cadillac?
A. No.
Q. They didn't tell you it was a Cadillac?
A. No.
Thus, defense counsel implied to the jury that Martin's memory of the actual facts might be tainted by discussions with police that took place prior to the statement he gave to them.
Although there was an implied charge of improper influence, this does not necessarily make Martin's prior consistent statement admissible. Section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), only permits the admission of prior consistent statements made before the existence of the facts said to indicate the improper influence. See Preston v. State, 470 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McElveen, 415 So.2d at 748. See also Wilson v. State, 434 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kellam, 287 So.2d at 734. In the present case, the fact said to indicate the influence was the discussion between Martin and the police, which occurred prior to Martin making the statement involved here. Thus, all Martin's statements, including the prior consistent statement at issue, were made subsequent to the fact said to indicate the influence. Martin's pri- or consistent statement, therefore, was inadmissible under the statute. Preston; McElveen.
Accordingly, we find it was error to admit Detective Parmenter's testimony which recited Martin's statement made to the de tective during the initial investigation where that statement was consistent with Martin's trial testimony for the state. In addition, the error in admitting this hearsay testimony cannot be considered harmless under the circumstances of the present case. As previously indicated, Martin's testimony was an important link in the state's case which tied together several elements of the circumstantial evidence against the defendant. Although it is undisputed that the bagged uniform near the murder scene belonged to the defendant, it is only Martin's testimony which indicates it was in the defendant's possession just prior to the time of the murder. This testimony permits two inferences. First, it was the defendant who left the bag near the scene of the murder; and second, the bag was left there at or near the time of the murder. There is no other testimony placing the bagged uniform in the possession of the defendant just prior to the murder.
In addition, Martin is the only witness to testify that the defendant drove back to and away from their trailer in a Cadillac on the night of the murder. This testimony is critical because it connects the defendant to the victim's car which was stolen just after the murder. The victim's neighbor testified that he heard a gunshot and that soon thereafter he heard the victim's Cadillac crank up. Although this witness testified that the Cadillac was driven in the direction of the defendant's trailer, he never identified the driver or indicated that the Cadillac stopped at the defendant's trailer. It is only Martin's testimony that puts the defendant in the Cadillac.
It was precisely these two areas of Martin's testimony that were corroborated by the detective's testimony as to Martin's prior statement. The detective's testimony had the effect of placing a cloak of credibility on Martin's testimony for the state. The proof of guilt against the defendant was not so overwhelming that the error committed can be deemed harmless. See Preston.
The defendant also alleges error in the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the victim's pocketknife which was seized from the defendant's possession incident to his arrest in New York. The facts relevant to this point are undisputed. The murder victim's body was discovered a short time after 12:30 a.m., February 25, 1985. Detective Parmenter, the lead Miami investigator on the case, arrived at the scene at approximately 2:00 a.m. The initial investigation consisted of a physical examination of the trailer in which the body was discovered and the surrounding vicinity, as well as interviews with neighbors in the area. Without detailing the evidence and information acquired again, suffice it to say that the defendant became a suspect during this initial on-the-scene police investigation and probable cause arose to arrest the defendant. Parmenter thereafter learned that the defendant had probably returned to New York where he had family. Accordingly, Parmenter subsequently had two telephone conversations with New York detectives in which he advised them that the defendant was a suspect in the homicide, and requested them to inform him if the defendant was located in their jurisdiction.
Although Parmenter did not state that a warrant had been issued nor specifically request that the New York authorities arrest the defendant, such was the interpretation made by the New York authorities. Officer Schreiner, one of the New York policemen involved in the defendant's arrest, testified that he was told at roll call that a warrant had been received from Florida and that the defendant was wanted in connection with a homicide. In addition, a notice to this same effect had been posted in the squadroom. Officer Elkowich, the other officer involved in the arrest, testified that he was told during roll call that the defendant was wanted by the Dade County Police Department for homicide.
After receiving a tip that the defendant was at his home, Elkowich and Schreiner proceeded to the defendant's residence. Elkowich went to the rear of the residence and Schreiner to the front. Schreiner knew the defendant prior to this incident, and recognized him as he and his brother-in-law walked out through the front door. Schreiner pulled his revolver, walked toward the defendant, and told the defendant he was under arrest. At this point, the defendant's brother-in-law stepped between the officer and the defendant, and the defendant began running up a flight of stairs toward his apartment. Upon observing the defendant make a threatening motion, Schreiner fired several shots at him and began pursuit. The defendant went through his apartment and began exiting out a back -window where Elkowich, who had heard the shots, ordered the defendant to stop. After the defendant failed to heed a number of orders to halt, Elkowich fired several shots at him, and the defendant fell back into the apartment. Elkowich then entered the apartment through the rear window and found the defendant lying on a bed with a gunshot wound to his left leg. A number of items were seized in the immediate vicinity of the defendant including the pocketknife at issue here. This pocketknife was identified at trial as belonging to the murder victim.
The state's position is that the pocketknife was legally seized incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant. The issue, therefore, is whether the warrantless arrest of the defendant was proper. The circumstances here necessitate the application of the "fellow officer" rule.
The fellow officer rule, sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 568, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971), allows an arresting officer to rely upon the strength of a directive or bulletin on a suspect and assume probable cause exists to arrest the particular person identified in the bulletin. Thus, the arresting officer is not required to have sufficient firsthand knowledge to constitute probable cause.
It is sufficient if the police officer initiating the chain of communication either had first hand [sic] knowledge or received his information from some person, official source or eye witness, who it seems reasonable to believe is telling the truth.
Crawford v. State, 334 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). See also Salas v. State, 246 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) and cases cited. See generally 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.5(b) (1978). Cf. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221,105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (applying the same theory in a Terry stop situation).
Under the fellow officer rule, the arresting officers in New York in the present case were entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid had sufficient information to constitute probable cause to arrest the defendant. See Whiteley, 401 U.S. at 568, 91 S.Ct. at 1037; Crawford; Salas. See also Routly v. State, 440 So.2d 1257, 1261 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984); Cummings v. State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980); Nelson v. State, 188 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). It is undisputed that Parmenter, the Miami detective, had probable cause to arrest the defendant when he initiated the communication with the New York authorities. Thus, the present case is distinguishable from those cases, such as Whiteley, where the officer initiating the communication had no probable cause whatsoever for arrest. In those situations, the otherwise illegal arrests cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrests. See Whiteley, 401 U.S. at 568, 91 S.Ct. at 1037; Albo v. State, 477 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hansen v. State, 385 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1379 (Fla.1980); State v. Harrington, 307 So.2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In the instant case, however, since the instigating officer did have probable cause, the warrantless arrest of the defendant by the New York police officers was valid under the fellow officer rule. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the search and seizure of the pocketknife, incident to the arrest, was lawful.
The defendant argues, however, that the fellow officer rule does not apply here because Parmenter did not specifically request the New York authorities to arrest the defendant. We reject this argument. Parmenter contacted the New York authorities on two occasions and informed them that the defendant was not only the prime suspect in the homicide involved in this case but also in a separate unrelated murder case. There was no request to have the defendant arrested because at the time of the communications it was apparently not verified that the defendant was in New York. The obvious intent of the communications was that if the defendant were located, he should be arrested and detained for questioning in connection with the homicide committed in Dade County, Florida. This was precisely the manner in which the New York authorities interpreted the communications. Although we agree that there must be some chain of communication between the arresting officer and the officer who has the probable cause to arrest, we refuse to impose a hyper-technical requirement that certain "magic words" must be used before the fellow officer rule is applicable.
The defendant also argues that since the New York officers who arrested him proceeded on the belief that an outstanding warrant existed (which did not exist until after the arrest), the arrest and, thus, seizure, must be declared invalid under the settled law that a void or nonexistent warrant may not be the basis for a legal arrest and search. See Martin v. State, 424 So.2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pesci v. State, 420 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The defendant's argument, however, misses the mark. The state here is not relying on a nonexistent warrant but rather upon the probable cause held by Parmenter. The incorrect conclusion of the arresting officer that a warrant existed does not prevent the state from relying on the fact that probable cause did in fact exist. See Routly, 440 So.2d at 1260-61.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the pocketknife seized incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant. The court did commit reversible error, however, by allowing the prior consistent statement into evidence. Therefore, the defendant's convictions are reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
BASKIN, J., concurs.
. The facts surrounding the defendant's arrest and the seizure of the pocketknife will be discussed in connection with the defendant's second point on appeal.
. It could be argued that the quoted exchange following in the text of this opinion is somewhat tenuous to support a finding of a charge of improper influence. Nevertheless, we accept the state's position in this regard without an in-depth analysis of the issue because it makes no difference in the result we reach in the present case. What would amount to an implied charge of improper influence in some future case must be left to be determined from the particular circumstances in that case.
. Detective Parmenter testified that on the morning after the homicide he had questioned and spoken with Martin for almost two and one-half hours before Martin's statement was taken down for the record. It is this official recórded statement that is at issue here.
. The dissent would indicate that this court has "ignored a forest of other circumstantial evidence which points to the defendant as the perpetrator to the exclusion of anyone else." Nevertheless, the dissent fails to point out what any of this evidence is with the exception of the defendant's bagged uniform found outside the trailer where the victim was found. The only other circumstantial evidence possibly connecting the defendant to the crime was that he left town near the time of the murder (the record indicates the defendant was somewhat of a transient, arriving in the area a few days prior to the murder) and that, when arrested in New York, the defendant was in possession of the victim's pocketknife (the defendant and victim knew each other and the pocketknife was last seen in the possession of the victim on the afternoon before the murder). Certainly, this evidence is not so overwhelming as to the defendant's guilt that the harmless error rule should be invoked.
. After a ballistics report matched the fatal bullet involved in the present case with one in another murder investigation, Parmenter actually informed the New York authorities on his second telephone communication that the defendant was a suspect in two separate homicides.
. We note that the Attorney General opinion quoted and approved in Nelson is no longer an accurate statement of the law. Under the quoted opinion, the arresting officer would have probable cause upon receiving a "pick-up notice" regardless of whether the officer issuing the notice had probable cause, thus, allowing the notice to validate an otherwise illegal arrest. This was precisely the position rejected by the Supreme Court in Whiteley, 401 U.S. at 568, 91 S.Ct. at 1037. See also D'Agostino v. State, 310 So.2d 12 (Fla.1975). But see Shriner v. State, 386 So.2d 525, 528 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1103, 101 S.Ct. 899, 66 L.Ed.2d 829 (1981).
. See supra note 6.
. See supra note 5.
. The cases cited by defendant for the proposition that a specific request to arrest must be made are unpersuasive on this point. Most of the cases relied upon are not contrary to our holding in that they involve situations where the courts found there was no channel of communication between the arresting officer and the officer having probable cause. See, e.g., State v. Cooley, 457 A.2d 352 (Del. 1983) (no communication); State v. Crowder, 1 Hawaii App. 60, 613 P.2d 909 (Ct.App.1980) (no communication); People v. Creach, 69 Ill.App.3d 874, 25 Ill.Dec. 886, 387 N.E.2d 762 (App.Ct.1979); (no communication or probable cause), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 79 Ill.2d 96, 37 Ill.Dec. 338, 402 N.E.2d 228, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980); Salter v. State, 163 Ind.App. 35, 321 N.E.2d 760 (Ct.App.1975) (no communication). In addition, the other cases cited by defendant are factually distinguishable on other bases. See United States v. Woods, 544 F.2d 242, 258-62 (6th Cir.1976) (defendant was not arrested on basis of communication), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 787, 50 L.Ed.2d 778, cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 1652, 52 L.Ed.2d 361, cert. denied, 431 U.S. 954, 97 S.Ct. 2675, 53 L.Ed.2d 270 (1977); People v. Ford, 150 Cal.App.3d 687, 198 Cal.Rptr. 80 (Ct.App.1984) (no probable cause at time of communication to arresting officer); Commonwealth v. Gambit, 274 Pa.Super. 571, 418 A.2d 554 (1980) (no probable cause at time of communication to arresting officer), aff'd, 501 Pa. 453, 462 A.2d 211 (1983). None of the cases cited by the defendant specifically require that the communication contain a specific request to arrest and the defendant has not advanced any compelling reason for such a requirement; nor do the cited cases articulate any persuasive reasoning on the point. Therefore, to the extent any of these cases may be interpreted to require the requisite communication contain a specific request that an arrest be made, we decline to follow them.
. Since we are reversing for a new trial, we do not reach the alleged sentencing error raised by the defendant.