Opinion ID: 1335938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Street Encounter

Text: The record indicates that at the time Officer Sigler approached the defendant in his cruiser on the evening of March 23, 1995, the defendant merely was standing on a street corner. There was no evidence that Officer Sigler had any suspicion that the defendant had engaged in or was about to engage in criminal activity. During the adjudication proceeding, Officer Sigler testified on direct examination as follows regarding his initial contact with the defendant: Q. Would you please describe your contact with him? A. I was in my cruiser driving down Southwest Street when I noticed the said juvenile in front of Doc's Tavern on Southwest Street. I recognized him from previous contact with him. I also remembered seeing a bulletin on our board by our schedule in the office some sort of wanted list for this subject. So I turned the cruiser around and had called the subject over to my vehicle and told him about the apparent, I believe it was a petition I think his mother had filed, and then also he had some unpaid citations. He failed to appear in court. I had written him a ticket on 1/4 of 1995 and he failed to appear. So I told him he needed to go down to the office to discuss it. So he got in the cruiser and went to the office. The defendant argues in this appeal that he was effectively and unlawfully placed under arrest when Officer Sigler ordered him to get into the cruiser because he was never free to leave. The defendant points out that Officer Sigler did not have a capias or arrest warrant against him and that Officer Sigler did not have probable cause to believe the defendant had committed or was about to commit a felony or that he was committing a misdemeanor. Additionally, the defendant notes that the alleged juvenile petition against him had been withdrawn by his mother about a week prior to this encounter and no order had been issued by a circuit court for his apprehension based upon the withdrawn petition. The defendant's argument runs roughshod over the legal issues at stake in the street encounter. Two issues derive from the street encounter: (1) defendant's entry into the cruiser, and (2) transportation of the defendant to police headquarters. The circuit court found that because Officer Sigler had knowledge that a petition had been filed against the defendant and the defendant had not paid a traffic citation, Officer Sigler had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Therefore, from the circuit court's perspective, the defendant's entry into the cruiser was a valid seizure. Obviously, the circuit court's legal conclusion was erroneous. The outstanding traffic citation was given for operating a motor vehicle with a broken tail light in violation of W. Va.Code, 17C-15-5(a) (1951). This citation offense is a misdemeanor under W. Va.Code, 17C-15-1(a) (1951). Once the defendant failed to appear pursuant to the citation, the municipal court had authority to issue a capias or warrant. See W.Va.R.Crim.P. 4(a). Absent judicial authority to arrest for failure to appear, Officer Sigler lacked the requisite power to bring in the defendant on his own. Moreover, once the defendant was taken to the police station, he was never processed for the traffic citation. Thus, any claim that the seizure of the defendant was justified on the grounds of failure to appear is at best pretextual. [9] With respect to Officer Sigler's knowledge of a petition filed against the defendant ( see Section II(B), infra ), the evidence is clear that Officer Sigler did not know the exact nature of the petition. Thus, we have no hesitation in finding the circuit court was clearly wrong in finding Officer Sigler had probable cause to arrest the defendant and place him in the cruiser. Officer Sigler testified he told the defendant he wanted to discuss the traffic citation with him at police headquarters, so the defendant got into the cruiser. Mere entry into a police car, without more, does not constitute an arrest. State v. George, 185 W.Va. 539, 545, 408 S.E.2d 291, 297 (1991). See United States v. Parr, 843 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir.1988) ([c]ertainly, there is no per se rule that detention in a patrol car constitutes an arrest); United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 377 (4th Cir.1984) ([t]his court refuses to recognize a rule that all detentions in a patrol car are per se arrests), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1217, 105 S.Ct. 1197, 84 L.Ed.2d 342 (1985). (Emphasis in original). However, this Court is inflexibly committed to the principle that when police take a [citizen] to the stationhouse for interrogation, they must either have probable cause or the consent of the suspect. Jones, 193 W.Va. at 385, 456 S.E.2d at 466. (Emphasis added). See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 216, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2258, 60 L.Ed.2d 824, 838 (1979) (arrest occurs when suspect is taken to police headquarters for interrogation). Transporting a citizen, involuntarily, miles to a police station for purposes of interrogation is the functional equivalent of an arrest requiring probable cause. We have already concluded that Officer Sigler did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant at the point of their encounter on the street. Therefore, in order for Officer Sigler to transport the defendant to police headquarters, the defendant had to expressly consent to this conveyance. Unfortunately, there was not an independent suppression hearing in this case. The circuit court made its ruling on the defendant's suppression motion after hearing the trial testimony of Officer Sigler. Neither the State nor the defendant questioned Officer Sigler as to whether the defendant expressly consented to being transported to police headquarters. The record in this case merely informs us that the defendant got into Officer Sigler's cruiser. While we are obligated to construe the facts of a motion to suppress in the light most favorable to the prevailing party belowthe State, on the narrow issue we are reviewing, the State failed to meet its burden of production. Moreover, as we point out in Section II(B), infra, there is an additional constitutional error that makes reversal necessary. B.