Opinion ID: 161005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fourth Amendment: Probable Cause

Text: 26 Before trial, the district court held a hearing on Morris's motion to quash his arrest for lack of probable cause. The court found probable cause for Morris's arrest, and Morris appeals that decision. 27 We review de novo the trial court's determination of the reasonableness of an arrest under the Fourth Amendment and we review for clear error the trial court's findings of fact. United States v. Allen, 235 F.3d 482, 488 (10th Cir. 2000). In assessing Morris's challenge rooted in his Fourth Amendment rights, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. United States v. Foster, 100 F.3d 846, 849 (10th Cir. 1996). Additionally, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to the evidence, as well as the inferences and conclusions drawn therefrom, are matters for the trial judge. Id. (quoting United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 876 (10th Cir. 1994)). 28 A full custodial arrest conducted without a warrant, such as the arrest of Morris, requires probable cause. United States v. Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 1998). An officer has probable cause to arrest if, under the totality of the circumstances, he learned of facts and circumstances through reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested. Id. (quoting United States v. Guerrero-Hernandez, 95 F.3d 983, 986 (10th Cir. 1996)). Probable cause does not require facts sufficient for a finding of guilt; however, it does require more than mere suspicion. Id. (citing United States v. Hansen, 652 F.2d 1374, 1388 (10th Cir. 1981)). [T]he finding of probable cause to support an arrest may be based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement, in whole or part. Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d at 1216 n.5 (citing Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1155 (10th Cir. 1997)). When such a hearsay statement is corroborated, a finding of probable cause is enhanced. Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d at 1216 n.5 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983)). 29 We have reviewed carefully the parties' arguments, the transcript of the motion to quash, and the trial court's decision. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's conclusion, 4 we conclude there was probable cause for Morris's arrest. The chain of events beginning with Morris's co-defendants' identification of a third participant in the robberies and concluding with Morris's arrest establishes that the police had much more than [a] mere suspicion. Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d at 1216. The trial court found Harris successfully aided the agents in forming a plan to capture Morris. Harris called Morris on a cell phone belonging to Morris. During the call, Harris asked Morris to come pick him up so that Harris could evade being caught for the robbery of a Burger King-in other words, Harris requested that Morris be an accessory after the fact to the Burger King robbery. In the meantime, agents were monitoring an apartment building Harris identified as Morris's place of residence. Shortly after the cell phone call was placed, Morris was seen leaving that building and was subsequently arrested. 5 We hold that under the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause for Morris's arrest. 30