Opinion ID: 6335130
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Washington’s Arrest

Text: The Fourth Amendment ensures the “right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[A] warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 706 (6th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004)). “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts[.]” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983). Because of this fluidity, the Supreme Court has described probable cause generally as “a flexible, common-sense standard.” Id. at 239. The probable cause test for an arrest considers “whether there is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt specific to the suspect.” United States v. Baker, 976 F.3d 636, 645 (6th Cir. -4- Case No. 21-5745, United States v. Washington 2020) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We ask “whether, at the time of the arrest, the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge and of which [he] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent person to conclude that an individual either had committed or was committing an offense.” United States v. Torres-Ramos, 536 F.3d 542, 555 (6th Cir. 2008) (original modification, internal quotations, and citation omitted). At the time of Washington’s arrest, officers had more than ample information to conclude that he intended to engage in criminal activity. Officers had reason to believe Washington was involved with a drug deal on June 4 after their interview with Belcher. Officers then corroborated Belcher’s information by acquiring the motel’s surveillance footage and Washington’s driver’s license information. When Belcher again solicited Washington for a pound of methamphetamine, the two agreed to meet at Room 202 of the Super 8 Motel to complete the transaction. With officers looking on, Washington arrived at the agreed-on location at the specified time operating the vehicle Belcher described. He then went directly to Room 202 and knocked on the door. Belcher’s information—corroborated by the officers’ independent investigation and surveillance—established probable cause to justify Washington’s arrest. See United States v. Strickland, 144 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that “the corroboration of a certain amount of information provided by an informant can be sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest and search a criminal suspect”). Accordingly, the district court properly denied his motion to suppress on this ground.