Opinion ID: 2121365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: One Detective Combs arrested Defendant on July 30, 1979, without a warrant, at the Marion County Jail. He took Defendant to police headquarters where Defendant made inculpatory statements and was identified in a line-up by one of the robbery victims. Defendant contends that there was no probable cause for his arrest, and therefore, that the trial court should have suppressed his statements and evidence of the line-up. Detective Combs relied upon a police report of the Robbery prepared by Officer Shue, who investigated the incident. That report is not contained in the record; however, Officer Shue's testimony reveals that he investigated the license plate number, talked to the witnesses, and discussed the case with other Police Agencies before listing a suspect, Augustus Owens, on the report. On the morning after the robbery at approximately 6:30 a.m. Officer Shue learned that the vehicle, which was used in the robbery, had been located across the street from Mr. Owens address. Officer Shue traced the vehicle identification number to learn that: A. It was registered to a Stephan Owens, and a lady, but I don't remember her name; I believe it was his wife. Officer Shue admitted that the license plate number obtained from one of the victims was not registered to Owens. Thereafter, the officer was shown some sort of card, which had been marked Defendant's Exhibit A. Officer Shue read the card and stated that the car was registered to Jerry or Denise Owens. The card was not admitted into evidence. Defendant contends that he has shown that the vehicle in question was registered to a Jerry Owens and therefore, that Officer Combs' arrest had been based upon erroneous information and lacked probable cause. The existence of probable cause to arrest is determined upon the basis of the collective information known to the law enforcement organization. Benton v. State, (1980) Ind., 401 N.E.2d 697, 699. If the arresting officer obtains the name of a suspect from a fellow officer, the State must show that the fellow officer relied upon information which would give rise to probable cause. Whiteley v. Warden, (1971) 401 U.S. 560, 568, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 28 L.Ed.2d 306, 313. The record shows that when Detective Combs arrested the defendant, he arrested Jerry Owens. By way of an exhibit attached to his motion to correct errors, Defendant admits that he is Jerry Owens. The exhibit points to police records, which show that the defendant had used the alias, Gerald Owens. Officer Shue testified: Q. During the course of your investigation did you have occasion to communicate with other Police Agencies? A. Yes, I did. Q. Further as a result of your investigation, talking with the witnesses, and your conversations with other Police Agencies, did you determine a suspect for this offense? A. Yes, I did. Defendant's contention is without merit. His arrest was based upon probable cause. Johns v. State, (1956) 235 Ind. 464, 466, 134 N.E.2d 552, 553.