Opinion ID: 1098782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arrest Issue

Text: Defendant next argues that the confessions were inadmissible as the fruit of an illegal arrest made without probable cause. Defendant contends that defendant was unlawfully arrested at the Top of the Duke Motel when the officers questioned him about the armed robbery and shooting of the French seaman. The testimony as to whether the defendant was arrested at the Top of the Duke Motel is conflicting. Officer Fricke testified that when he and Officer Brinke discovered that defendant was a juvenile he requested that he accompany them to the police station so that he could be interviewed in the presence of one or both of his parents in accordance with standard police procedure. Fricke testified that the officers did not draw their guns nor did they handcuff defendant. He was allowed to take his radio with him and played it while he voluntarily accompanied the officers. Defendant's testimony however was different. He testified in effect that he was arrested at gun point, then taken by the arm and led to the police car. Defendant stated that he did not know whether he was free not to accompany the officers. He contended that had he known that he was not required to go with them, he would not have. The trial court after hearing this testimony apparently found the officers' testimony more credible than defendant's. Although there is conflicting testimony as to whether the defendant was arrested, the trial court's apparent conclusion that defendant was not arrested and voluntarily accompanied them is supported by the record. Defendant's argument that the confessions were the fruit of an illegal arrest is therefore without merit.