Opinion ID: 1834950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: whether probable cause existed which warranted wilson's arrest?

Text: Wilson contends that at the time of his arrest there was no probable cause for it. He argues that the only evidence possessed by the state was: (1) His fingerprints which were only one from a group of nineteen that came from the wig shop; (2) That James Wilson had been convicted of armed robbery/attempted rape in 1971; (3) Manuel could not identify Wilson from a photo spread as the assailant; (4) Manuel could not positively identify Wilson's car as the one in which he saw the assailant flee. Wilson states that this clearly is not evidence making it reasonable to infer that Wilson was the person who robbed the wig shop. In Henry v. State, 486 So.2d 1209, 1212 (Miss. 1986), we said that to make an arrest for a felony, with or without a warrant, a police officer must have (1) reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed; and, (2) reasonable cause to believe that the person proposed to be arrested is the one who committed it... . `Probable cause' means less than evidence which would justify condemnation, but more than bare suspicion.  (Emphasis added). Powe v. State, 235 So.2d 920, 922 (Miss. 1970), states: It has been said that ordinarily, when the trustworthy evidence makes it clear that an offense has been committed and that a particular person was on the scene at the time it was committed, and then available evidence makes it reasonable to infer that the particular person not necessarily was, but may have been, one of the offenders, most discreet and prudent men would order that person's arrest. (Emphasis added). Prior to Wilson's arrest, police investigators knew: (1) Wilson's fingerprints were found on the glass counter top directly in front of the missing wig head and that this counter top was cleaned daily; (2) The assailant fled from the wig shop in a 1971 or 1972 white over black Pontiac Grand Prix that had a license plate which began with the letter G; (3) Aided by a computer printout, detectives determined that Wilson owned a car which matched this description; (4) Officers discovered this car sitting on blocks on Mobile Street and the top appeared to have been recently primed; (5) Manuel's description of the assailant reasonably mirrored Wilson's appearance as set out in police records. The foregoing establishes that the warrant for Wilson's arrest was based upon more than a bare suspicion and was issued upon probable cause, and that Wilson's arrest was legal.