Opinion ID: 2390645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Match.

Text: One question which causes the courts difficulties is whether probable cause is present when the police match up some but not all of the description with the person arrested. LAFAVE, supra, § 3.4(c), at 743. Although less precision is required for articulable suspicion, similar problems arise in that context. Not every discrepancy is fatal; mistakes are irrelevant if there is sufficient particularized information to constitute probable cause. Brown, supra, 125 U.S. App.D.C. at 46, 365 F.2d at 979. The fact that a part of the description does not fit is, however, obviously a negative factor. Mobley v. State, 270 Md. 76, 81-82, 310 A.2d 803, 807 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 975, 94 S.Ct. 2003, 40 L.Ed.2d 564 (1974). [W]hat must be taken into account is the strength of the points of comparison which do match up and also whether the nature of those which did not match [is] such that an error could readily occur. LAFAVE, supra, § 3.4(c), at 743. As we have noted, the description in the lookout to which Officer Walker testified was remarkably skimpy, especially since the alleged writing on the seller's shirt was not identified. The following chart summarizes the state of the record as to the match-up between the description of the black male who was alleged to be the seller and the actual appearance of Brown: Lookout Officer Defendant Trial Judge 1. Height 5'6 - 5'8½-5'9 No finding 2. Shirt color White White Tan No finding 3. Lettering No on Shirt Yes recollection No No finding 4. Pants Blue Maroon Burgundy Dark pants Jeans Jeans coach's shorts (written on police report) The trial judge did make a conclusory ultimate finding that Officer Walker arrested Brown with probable cause to believe that he was the person described in the radio run. The judge did not, however, resolve the remaining conflicts in the testimony. A discrepancy as to the color of Brown's pants may be explainable in view of the hour of the night. [Where] observations occurred in the early hours of the morning under artificial lighting conditions, a mistaken belief in the color of [the pants] is understandable. People v. Washington, 89 Ill.App.3d 734, 738, 44 Ill.Dec. 925, 927, 412 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1980). Assuming that Brown knows his own height and that he is 5'8 tall, an error of two and a half or three inches in describing him is not conclusive in and of itself. The discrepancies with respect to height, lettering, and color take on greater significance, however, where no meaningful similarities have been positively established except that Brown, like the seller, is a black male.