Opinion ID: 592997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There was Probable Cause to Arrest.

Text: 9 Muniz argues that he was arrested when the officers stopped him in the shopping mall parking lot, and that this arrest was not supported by probable cause. The trial judge found probable cause for the stop and detention. We review de novo the court's determination that there was probable cause to arrest Muniz. United States v. Del Vizo, 918 F.2d 821, 825 n. 6 (9th Cir.1990). 10 A warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause, which exists if 11 the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The experience and expertise of the officers involved in the investigation and arrest may be considered in determining probable cause.... Probable cause may be based on the collective knowledge of all of the officers involved in the investigation and all of the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. 12 United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 80 (1990). The aggregation of factors present supports the district court's finding of probable cause to arrest, and we agree that there was probable cause. See Hoyos and United States v. Del Vizo, 918 F.2d 821, 825-27 (9th Cir.1990). We therefore need not reach the issue of whether Muniz was arrested when he was stopped. 13