Opinion ID: 1926347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Probable cause and the standard of review.

Text: It is undisputed that Officer Frantzen's intrusion into Davis' shoe to retrieve the drugs, which were not in plain view, constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. [6] Both parties thus agree that the proper disposition of this appeal turns on whether, at the time the search was conducted, the officer had probable cause to arrest Davis and to search him incident to that arrest. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). Officer Frantzen had probable cause if the facts and circumstances within [his] knowledge and of which [he] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent [officer] in believing that [Davis] had committed or was committing an offense. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Probable cause is a common-sense, nontechnical conception[ ] that deal[s] with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons], not legal technicians, act. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the denial of Davis' motion to suppress evidence, our role is to ensure that the trial court had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Parker, supra, 601 A.2d at 49 (quoting Goldston v. United States, 562 A.2d 96, 98 (D.C.1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the trial court, and all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn in that party's favor. See, e.g., Cauthen v. United States, 592 A.2d 1021, 1022 (D.C.1991). The trial court's ultimate conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Ornelas, supra, 517 U.S. at 697-99, 116 S.Ct. 1657.