Opinion ID: 2074089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Warrantless Arrest and Search

Text: The defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to quash the affidavit of probable cause and their motion to suppress evidence. They claim that the police failed to obtain arrest and search warrants when they had an opportunity to do so. The police officers waited in and near Wheelington's motel room from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on a day when the courts were open. The detective in charge did not seek an arrest or search warrant because of the uncertainty of what day and hour the two men would arrive. When the two arrived later that night, the police arrested them while another officer searched the sack that Enamorado had carried in. A police officer may make a warrantless arrest if he has reasonable and probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a felony. Carter v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 288; Fisher v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1365; Fyock v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1089. Probable cause for arrest exists where at the time of arrest the officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances which warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe a suspect has committed the criminal act in question. Jones v. State (1984), Ind. App., 467 N.E.2d 1236, 1239. Where police officers rely on a third source's tip, probable cause may be established by verification of extrinsic evidence [1] which demonstrates the reliability of the tip. Cato v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 102, 396 N.E.2d 119. Wheelington's information was corroborated by Mexico Joe's call to his pager and the arrival at the hotel room of two Hispanic men, both of which were witnessed by the police officers. Indianapolis police officer Thomas Breen, a narcotics detective for approximately ten years, testified regarding the common practice of drug dealers to use voice beepers and to move around from hotel to hotel to avoid police detection, the same modus operandi as presented by the facts of this case. Additionally, Wheelington had provided information on other crimes which had led to numerous drug-related arrests. [2] The totality of the circumstances involving Wheelington's prior activities as an informant, the character of the predicted events as similar in modus operandi to typical criminal drug transactions, and the occurrence of events as predicted by the informant, combine to constitute adequate probable cause obviating the need to obtain arrest warrants in the circumstances presented here. The defendants also attack the validity of the warrantless search of the grocery sack which Enamorado carried into the motel room. They correctly state that the State has the burden of showing that the search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Savage v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 758. Where police officers have probable cause to apprehend an individual, they are justified in conducting a limited search for the purpose of removing weapons or contraband within the arrestee's control. Merritt v. State (1986), Ind., 488 N.E.2d 340; Murrell v. State (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 638. A search incidental to an arrest must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place. Arnold v. State (1984), Ind., 460 N.E.2d 494; Jones v. State, 467 N.E.2d 1236. In this case, the police officers had probable cause to believe the defendants were bringing cocaine into the motel room. To remove any weapons or contraband, the officers were justified in searching the defendants and the sack within Enamorado's immediate control. As the warrantless search was lawful, the trial court properly denied the defendants' motions.