Opinion ID: 1043044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Guevara was Arrested

Text: Finally, Guevara contends that she was placed under arrest by Trooper Lewis at a time when the troopers merely suspected she possessed contraband but lacked probable cause. “There is no bright line of demarcation between investigative stops and arrests.” United States v. Miller, 974 F.2d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685–86 (1985)) (additional citations omitted). “‘A Terry stop may become an arrest, requiring probable cause, if the stop lasts for an unreasonably long time or if officers use unreasonable force.’” United States v. Smith, 648 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Newell, 596 F.3d 876, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)). Guevara contends that she was in fact under arrest at least from the time she was handcuffed, which is before she gave incriminating statements. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s finding that Guevara was merely detained and not arrested. This is not the case to wrestle with the boundaries of detentions and arrests. While the circumstances of this case suggest something more than an investigative detention, we find there was probable cause to support an arrest. Thus, “any arrest that might have allegedly occurred was not unlawful.” United States v. Martinez, 462 F.3d 903, 907, 910 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding in the alternative that even if a detention was converted into an arrest by handcuffing the suspect, because there was probable -11- cause, the arrest was not unlawful). We will assume without deciding, therefore, that Guevara’s detention was an arrest. Guevara argues that the discovery of a hidden compartment containing cardboard and plastic was insufficient to give the troopers probable cause to arrest. Guevara maintains that because the troopers did not know with any degree of certainty that there were drugs hidden in the compartment, they lacked probable cause to arrest her. We disagree. Whether officers make a formal arrest or a detention ripens into an arrest, “[a] warrantless arrest is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if it is supported by probable cause.” Ulrich v. Pope Cnty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1059 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 522–23 (8th Cir. 2011)); see also Martinez, 462 F.3d at 907, 910 (holding in the alternative that even if handcuffing a suspect did convert the detention into an arrest, the arrest was justified by probable cause). “Probable cause to make a warrantless arrest exists ‘when the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed or is committing an offense.’” Ulrich, 715