Opinion ID: 694108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: January 21 Warrantless Arrest

Text: 18 Tapia-Torres argues that there was no probable cause to arrest her, and that therefore, statements she made after the arrest admitting ownership of the cellular phone and pagers found in the motel room should have been suppressed. 19 A warrantless arrest is valid if it is supported by probable cause. United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 825 (1990). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. United States v. Thomas, 835 F.2d 219, 222 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1010 (1988). Determination of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact which is reviewed de novo. Hoyos, 892 F.2d at 1392. However, the reviewing court must accept the underlying facts as found by the district court unless clearly erroneous. Id. 20 The government maintains that State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE) Agent, Moses Rodriguez, arrested Tapia-Torres, and that before the arrest he knew from informant Garcia and from surveillance records that Tapia-Torres had delivered half a pound of methamphetamine to Garcia and had purchased two vacuum pumps through Garcia. Tapia-Torres contends that Agent Rodriguez was not the arresting officer and that probable cause can only be based on the knowledge possessed by the arresting officer or by other officers actually assisting or participating in the arrest. 21 The arresting officer need not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating probable cause to support a warrantless arrest. See United States v. Bertrand, 926 F.2d 838, 844 (9th Cir.1991). Probable cause may be based on the collective knowledge of all of the officers involved in the investigation and all of the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Hoyos, 892 F.2d at 1392. At the hearing on Tapia-Torres' motion to suppress, the government stated that Agent Rodriguez was present during the arrest and that the investigation involved a combined task force with state narcotics agents and local police. Therefore, probable cause could be supported by the collective knowledge of all the agents, including Agent Rodriguez, who were involved in the surveillance operation and investigation. 22 Tapia-Torres nonetheless argues that there was no evidence that before her arrest Agent Rodriguez actually knew about Tapia-Torres' involvement in the purchase of the half-pound of methamphetamine and the vacuum pumps. The district court found, however, that he did know of those two incidents prior to her arrest but did not present the information to the issuing magistrate until after the arrest because he had been instructed not to do anything to reveal the identity of the informant Garcia at that time. Tapia-Torres does not argue that this factual finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, Agent Rodriguez did have probable cause to arrest her. See United States v. Salas, 879 F.2d 530, 536 (9th Cir.) (Informants' statements about observing drugs in motel room and officers' observations of defendants on apparent narcotics delivery gave probable cause to arrest defendant in motel room), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 979 (1989). Moreover, because this was a joint investigation, there were other officers who were aware of the two incidents, and probable cause could be based on their collective knowledge. 23 Accordingly, the district court correctly found that probable cause existed to support Tapia-Torres' warrantless arrest.