Opinion ID: 348721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the probable cause issue

Text: 9 Appellant argues that the arresting officers lacked probable cause for his arrest and search. The facts surrounding his arrest, as detailed at the suppression hearing and stipulated to at trial, are as follows: 10 During the late afternoon of May 20, 1976, Officers Carl A. Occhipinti and Vance L. Beard were staked out in an observation post on the third floor of a vacant house in the middle of the 1100 block of O Street, N.W. These officers were engaged in an ongoing investigation of narcotics activity in that area and were using binoculars to make observations of the 1000 block of O Street. According to Officer Occhipinti, who testified at the suppression hearing, the area under observation was well known to him and to other narcotics officers as having a high concentration of narcotics activity, including the street sale of phenmetrazine, heroin and other drugs. He himself had previously made nine arrests in that area, all involving phenmetrazine. 2 It was his further testimony that the only type of phenmetrazine found on the street at that time took the form of a pink pill somewhat larger than an aspirin tablet, bearing the inscription BI-62. 11 At approximately 5:00 P.M., the two officers first noticed appellant, who was standing on the north side of the 1000 block of O Street, approximately three-quarters of a block away. He was observed by the officers for approximately five minutes, in clear weather, from an unobstructed view. During this period, the officers observed three different men approach appellant and engage him in a brief discussion. In each instance, the conversation concluded with the stranger handing appellant what appeared to be an amount of money, which appellant would then count and place in his front pants pocket. The appellant would then remove a small manila envelope from his rear pants pocket and appear to count out a number of small objects to be given to the stranger before his departure. 12 Officer Occhipinti testified that the first two strangers walked away from the appellant without revealing anything further to the narcotics officers concerning the nature of the observed transactions. After the third man left the appellant, however, he passed directly underneath the observation post at a distance of approximately 20-25 feet. As he did so, Officer Occhipinti testified, he momentarily unclenched his fist such that the officers were able to observe several pink pills which appeared to them to be phenmetrazine tablets. The officers then left their observation post, observed appellant entering a liquor store on the southeast corner of 11th and O Streets, noticed that he held a large quantity of money in his hand, and placed him under arrest. Officer Beard then removed from appellant's right rear pants pocket a manila envelope containing thirteen pink phenmetrazine tablets, inscribed with the marking BI-62. 13 On these facts, the trial judge denied appellant's motion to suppress the phenmetrazine tablets. He found that the experience and expertise of the arresting officers, coupled with the nature of the events observed, gave rise to a probable cause belief that a crime had been committed. See United States v. Davis, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 403-4, 458 F.2d 819, 821-22 (1972). 14 Appellant challenges this finding by the trial judge, contending that the events observed by the two narcotics officers, even when considered in light of their broad experience and their knowledge of that particular neighborhood as a high narcotics area, are insufficient to constitute probable cause for arrest. He insists that the exchanges observed by the two officers are also susceptible to many innocent interpretations, even in the eyes of an experienced officer. 3 15 We do not agree. It is true that an arrest based solely upon an officer's experience and expertise, without more, lacks probable cause. Similarly, the observation of a generally suspicious currency transaction, even in a high narcotics area, may not necessarily give rise to probable cause. But where, as here, all of the above elements are present in sturdy form and particularly where a suspect is closely observed engaging in the identical suspicious activity three times within a five-minute span a finding of probable cause is sound. As this Court recently stated in a similar case involving a single narcotics transaction: 16 Because all innocent explanations for this exchange of a tinfoil packet for currency seem so implausible, we affirm the trial court's finding of probable cause. 17 United States v. Thomas, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 162, 551 F.2d 347, 348 (1976). 4