Opinion ID: 1975676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Warrantless Arrest Standard

Text: We have concluded under the unique circumstances of this case, that the police conduct in carrying out a plan to surround Darling at gunpoint and order him to the ground was more than a seizure but, in fact, constituted an arrest under both the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution. [4] Therefore, we must determine whether the police had probable cause to arrest Darling at the time that they emerged from the woods. [5] If the police did have probable cause at the time of the arrest, the bag of marijuana is admissible as the product of a lawful seizure. A police officer is empowered to make a warrantless arrest for any felony, if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested has committed the crime. [6] Reasonable grounds has been interpreted to be synonymous with probable cause. [7] This Court has said that: `Probable cause is an elusive concept which avoids precise definition.... It lies somewhere between suspicion and sufficient evidence to convict.' For this reason, probable cause is measured by the totality of the circumstances through a case by case review of `the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [act].' [8] A finding of probable cause is necessarily case-specific. A determination of the existence of probable cause for a warrantless felony arrest is based on a totality of the circumstances. [9] Courts generally require that `the facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense.' [10] Courts must review probable cause determinations in light of the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. [11]