Opinion ID: 1451999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: lawful arrest

Text: Appellant's final contention is that his arrest was unlawful in that there was no probable cause for the arresting officer to have made the arrest without a warrant. He further contends that, since HRS § 286-155 is only applicable after a lawful arrest, he should not have been required to submit to the breath or blood test. The record indicates the following facts. When the arresting officer arrived at the arrest site, he observed that appellant's car was damaged; that appellant was very unsteady on his feet and that he had a small cut on his lip. The officer then asked the appellant whether he had been involved in an automobile accident to which the appellant answered affirmatively. The appellant was then advised of his constitutional rights and responded that he was a lawyer and that he knew them. While engaged in this conversation the officer smelled alcohol on the appellant's breath. The arresting officer then asked appellant if he had taken any intoxicating liquor and the appellant responded that he was not required to answer this question. The appellant then described to the arresting officer the circumstances of the accident by stating that he was on his way home at a rate of approximately fifteen miles per hour. Appellant stated that he was tired and that he had struck an unidentified telephone pole. At this point the officer placed the appellant under arrest. In State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 142, 433 P.2d 593, 597 (1967), this court cited Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), in which case the United States Supreme Court stated: Officers have probable cause to make an arrest when the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that [a crime was being committed]. In State v. Chong, 52 Haw. 226, 231, 473 P.2d 567, 571 (1970), we cited People v. Scott, 259 Cal. App.2d 268, 66 Cal. Rptr. 257 (1968), with approval: [P]robable cause [to arrest] is generally based upon a combination of factors, which together form a sort of mosaic, of which any one piece by itself often might not be enough to constitute probable cause, but which, when viewed as a whole, does constitute probable cause. Based on the facts and circumstances put forth in the record, we are of the opinion that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest appellant for the charges involved herein and that the subsequent request that he submit to the breath or blood test was lawful. [2] The other issues raised by appellant are without merit. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.