Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Donald J. EDWARDS, Appellant
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-10-08
Citations: 375 So. 2d 1365
Docket Number: No. 64204
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Donald J. EDWARDS, Appellant.
Judges: DIXON, J., dissents with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 375
Pages: 1365–1372

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Donald J. EDWARDS, Appellant.
No. 64204.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 8, 1979.
Walton J. Barnes, II, Zachary, for defendant-appellant.
William J..Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kay Kirkpatrick, Premila Burns Chumbley, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In our review of this conviction, we find that a substantial issue is presented by the defendant's motion to suppress his confession. One ground alleged is that the confession should be suppressed as the product of a warrantless arrest without probable cause. Dunaway v. New York, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). See Assignments of Error Nos. 2, 3 (see also Assignments 4, 5, 6, 21, and 22).
(1)
The defendant Edwards and two alleged accomplices (Kent and Shepherd) were arrested without warrants on the basis of information furnished Lieutenant Gill, an investigating police officer. The defendant Edwards confessed within thirty minutes of the start of the interrogation. If there was no probable cause for the arrest of Edwards and his two alleged companions, a serious issue is presented as to whether, under Dunaway and Brown, the confession of Edwards should be suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest.
Lieutenant Gill testified that he arrested Edwards and his two alleged accomplices (Kent and Shepherd) on the basis of information obtained from two unidentified informants. One of the informants had previously given him information which had led to at least two arrests and convictions. The other informant had furnished Gill information only on the present occasion. The information had been received by Gill on the day previous to the arrests, and he further testified that these informants had not furnished the information which had led to the earlier arrest of three other suspects.
(2)
The serious error in the pre-trial hearing occurred when the defendant Edwards' counsel attempted to ascertain whether there was probable cause for his arrest.
As this court has held, conformably to Brown v. Illinois, cited above, a confession must be suppressed if the product of an illegal arrest made without probable cause. State v. Scott, 355 So.2d 231 (La.1977). We there reiterated, 355 So.2d 234, "A warrant-less arrest, no less than an arrest pursuant to a validly issued warrant, must be based on probable cause. . . . Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonable and trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a man of average caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing an offense. . . . While the officer need not have sufficient proof to convict, mere suspicion is not enough to justify an arrest."
Thus, even if anonymous informants are shown to have furnished reliable information in the past in order to justify a detention or seizure based upon information furnished by them the state must nevertheless show that the informant's information was based on his personal observation or knowledge or sufficient factual detail so as to indicate factual reasons for probable cause for the arrest. State v. Tassin, 343 So.2d 681, 689 (La.1977) and decisions therein cited.
"Generalized underworld gossip by faceless informers does not provide a sufficient factual basis" to justify the state's invasion of the security of person and property of individuals living under Louisiana law and guaranteed by Article 1, Section 5 of our state constitution. Tassin at 343 So.2d 691. A lead or tip of this non-factual nature does not furnish probable cause for an arrest; consequently, a confession may be inadmissible if it is the immediate product (as the exploitation of) of an illegal arrest thereby resulting. Dunaway v. New York, - U.S. -, 99 St.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979).
Error in the pre-trial hearing on the motion to suppress resulted when the trial court sustained state objections to defense efforts to establish whether the informants had seen something or heard someone say it or give information as to physical evidence. The defense counsel asked: " what exactly was the information that you received from your informants how did they know they [the defendant and his companions] were involved? Did they hear some talk?" Tr. 148-49, transcript of motion to suppress hearing.
The defense counsel was thus attempting to ascertain the factual basis of the information received by the police officer, by reason of which he believed he had probable cause to arrest the defendant.
The state objected, on the grounds that they were getting into hearsay. However, the defense specifically stated the relevant reason for the query: "The issue is probable cause for the arrest." Tr. 149. See also Tr. 134-36.
The trial court sustained the objection. It had similarly sustained earlier objections attempting to ascertain whether there was probable cause for the arrest. Then, the trial court previously had accepted state arguments that, unlike in a search warrant situation, the basis or reliability of the information leading to the arrest is irrelevant, especially if after the arrest the accused received Miranda warnings.
However, on June 5, 1979, subsequent to the trial court's rulings, the United States Supreme Court in Dunaway v. New York, cited above, specifically rejected such arguments. It there held that a confession was inadmissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, even though received after Miranda warnings, because it resulted from the constitutionally impermissible exploitation of a warrantless arrest without probable cause (i. e., one based solely on generalized tips or leads, which did not furnish an articulated factual basis to indicate probable cause for detention of the accused as a suspect for the crime under investigation). As in the present case, in Dunaway the first incriminating statements were made within an hour of the accused's detention.
Under Dunaway, the trial court was in error in sustaining the state's objections and in depriving the accused of an opportunity to demonstrate whether his arrest was made without probable cause. See also State v. Scott, 355 So.2d 231 (La.1978) and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), which the defendant's counsel had strenuously (and cor rectly) urged as justifying his inquiry into the probable cause for the accused's arrest, a relevant query in the determination of whether the confession should be suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest.
(3)
The prior confession of at least one of the defendant's companions may, as the state suggests, also have furnished part of the probable cause for the defendant's arrest. However, if these arrests were likewise made without probable cause (and the companions' confessions secured shortly thereafter), at least some members of the court are of the opinion that Dunaway and Brown dictate inadmissibility not only of their own confessions but also (insofar as the defendant's arrest may have been based thereupon) of the defendant's confession immediately after his own arrest (if without probable cause), the arrest having been made within or about an hour after the confederate's confessions procured as the result of similarly illegal arrests.
In this regard, the defendant attempted to introduce in evidence a certified copy of the booking records of himself and his alleged accomplices (Shepherd and Kent) and to produce other evidence, in order to demonstrate that their arrests were also made without probable cause and that, from the times of the respective arrests, it would be impossible for the confession of Kent to have furnished probable cause for the almost contemporaneous arrest of Edwards. See Tr. 118-129, Motion to Suppress Hearing.
The state objected on grounds of relevancy. The court erroneously sustained this objection for the reasons previously decided. Also, the information was obviously relevant, as is shown by the state's argument seeking to justify the defendant Edwards' arrest as based on information acquired from Kent and Shepherd after their arrests. See footnote 1 above.
(4)
Normally, reversal is required when trial error permits a jury to be exposed to an incriminating statement by the defendant, when that statement might not be admissible, if inquiry had been permitted which was curtailed by the erroneous trial ruling. State v. McGraw, 366 So.2d 1278, 1289-90 (La.1979).
Nevertheless, when the error has occurred in a ruling during a hearing on a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession, our recent practice has been to remand the motion for a reopened hearing to admit the omitted or improperly excluded evidence. State v. Scott, 355 So.2d 231 (La.1978); State v. Hills, 354 So.2d 186 (La.1977); State v. Simmons, 328 So.2d 149 (La.1976). As we explained in Simmons, 328 So.2d 153, by this practice "the error might be eliminated upon another trial of the motion to suppress," and a new trial on the merits be avoided if in fact no error at such trial has occurred.
(5)
We find to be here appropriate this procedure of remand for a re-opened hearing on the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we remand the motion to suppress for the trial court to receive at the re-opened hearing evidence as to probable cause for the arrest of the accused, in accordance with the views expressed above, and for it to make its ruling on the motion in the light thereof and of evidence previously received, consistent with the holdings in State v. Scott, Dunaway v. New York, and Brown v. Illinois, cited above.
Because we have not completed our review of other substantial contentions raised by this appeal, we otherwise retain jurisdiction of this appeal, with the following directions: if the trial court finds that the confession should have been suppressed, it is directed to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial (and the present appeal will be mooted); if, on the other hand, the trial court reinstates its denial of the motion to suppress the confession, it is ordered to transmit to this court its ruling and the record of the ré-opened hearing on the motion to suppress, in order that this court may complete its review of the issue under the assignments of error previously made and any further ones made as a result of rulings at the re-opened hearing — as well as for us to complete our review of the remaining assignments of error raised by this appeal.
Decree
Accordingly, the motions to suppress the confession are remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the views and directions expressed by this opinion. In accordance with and subject to the directions expressed by part (5) of this opinion, this court otherwise retains jurisdiction of this appeal.
DIXON, J., dissents with reasons.
CALOGERO, J., dissents for reasons assigned by DIXON, J.
DENNIS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. See Tr. 140, prosecutor's argument: "What we're talking about is tips, the police do this constantly. They get tips; they get information off the streets. It didn't stop there. They made arrests on the basis of the two other individuals and their statements which incriminated this particular defendant on the basis of ail this sum total of the information." But (see part (3) of this opinion), the state objected to introduction of booking sheets introduced to show that statements of the coaccuseds could not have furnished probable cause for the defendant's arrest because of the short time sequence between the respective arrests.