Opinion ID: 2277872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probable Cause Hovington's Warrantless Arrest

Text: When the law enforcement officers apprehended Hovington at the end of the burned-out mobile home, he was arrested for suspicion of narcotics. [7] A peace officer is authorized to make a warrantless arrest for a felony whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony has in fact been committed. 11 Del.C. § 1904(b)(1). The phrase reasonable ground to believe, as used in the Delaware statute, has been construed to mean probable cause. Thompson v. State, Del.Supr., 539 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1988). This Court has long recognized that [p]robable cause is an elusive concept which avoids precise definition ... It lies somewhere between suspicion and sufficient evidence to convict. Id. (quoting State v. Cochran, Del.Supr., 372 A.2d 193, 195 (1977)). The United States Supreme Court has concluded that probable cause must be measured by the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). This requires a case-by-case review of the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. Thompson v. State, 539 A.2d at 1055 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 103 S.Ct. at 2328). The Superior Court ruled that under the totality of the circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest Hovington when he was apprehended at the end of the burned-out mobile home. The Superior Court based its ruling upon the following facts: Hovington was in a secluded area which was known to the police as an open air drug market; Hovington was seated next to two men who were charged in arrest warrants with selling drugs to undercover agents in that area; one of the drug sales had taken place earlier the same day; Hovington fled when the police identified themselves, with unknown objects in his hand; and Hovington apparently discarded those objects during his flight. The Superior Court properly measured the totality of the circumstances in this case by a review of the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. Thompson v. State, 539 A.2d at 1055 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 103 S.Ct. at 2328). [8] See also Jarvis v. State, Del.Supr., 600 A.2d 38, 42 (1991). First, the known reputation of an area for crime (high-crime character) is a relevant factor in determining whether probable cause exists. Jarvis v. State, Del. Supr., 600 A.2d 38, 41 (1991); U.S. v. White, 655 F.2d 1302, 1304 (D.C.Cir.1981). Second, while flight alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances to make its import less ambiguous, flight or evasion may be properly considered in assessing probable cause when coupled with additional factors relating the suspect to evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Green, 670 F.2d 1148, 1152 (D.C.Cir. 1981); Downs v. State, Del.Supr., 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 n. 2 (1990). See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 66-67, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1904, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). See also U.S. v. Lima, 819 F.2d 687, 689 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Embry, 546 F.2d 552 (3d Cir.1976). Third, when Hovington was ordered to stop by the law enforcement officers, he refused. State v. Morrow, Del. Supr., 603 A.2d 835, 838 (1992). Finally, the fact that Hovington apparently attempted to conceal the nature of the object he was carrying when he fled may also be a relevant consideration in determining probable cause. See U.S. v. Green, 670 F.2d at 1153. The record supports the Superior Court's ruling that there was probable cause to arrest Hovington when he was apprehended. Downs v. State, Del.Supr., 570 A.2d 1142, 1144 n. 2 (1990). [9] Assuming, arguendo, that none of the above factors taken alone is sufficient to establish probable cause, when combined, they support the Superior Court's determination that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause for Hovington's arrest. Jarvis v. State, 600 A.2d at 41-43; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-244 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 2335 n. 13; U.S. v. Green, 670 F.2d at 1153. Consequently, we hold that the Superior Court properly determined that the slip of paper, which was removed from Hovington's pocket following a search of his person, was seized incident to a lawful arrest. Jarvis v. State, 600 A.2d at 43; 11 Del.C. § 2303(1), (2)(d). [10] .