Opinion ID: 1125029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Intoxication

Text: Although defendant was acquitted of disturbing the peace by being intoxicated, it remains possible that the officers did, in fact, have probable cause to arrest defendant on the charge, even though the state could not prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to justify a person of ordinary caution in believing the person to be arrested has committed a crime. State v. Davis, 357 So.2d 519 (La.1978); State v. Dunbar, 356 So.2d 956 (La.1978); State v. Johnson, 192 So.2d 135, 249 La. 950 (1966). Disturbing the peace is the doing of any of the following in such a manner as would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public:... (3) appearing in an intoxicated condition. R.S. 14:103. In State v. Jordan, 369 So.2d 1347 (La. 1979), we concluded that the words foreseeably disturb or alarm the public, as found in R.S. 14:103, encompass only conduct which is violent or boisterous in itself, or which is provocative in the sense that it induces a foreseeable physical disturbance. (Quoting from Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 82 S.Ct. 248, at 253, 7 L.Ed.2d 207.) Like the trial judge, it is difficult for us to imagine how defendant's conduct on his own property, and under the circumstances of this case, could foreseeably have disturbed the public. The incident took place in a rural area outside of Covington. There is no evidence which indicates the encounter with defendant occurred close to any other dwelling place where the public might possibly be alarmed. In fact, the officers testified that no one except defendant's family observed the incident. Because we conclude no probable cause existed to believe defendant's conduct could have foreseeably disturbed or alarmed the public, defendant's intoxication did not provide grounds for his arrest for disturbance of the peace and his arrest cannot be justified on that basis.