Opinion ID: 1152591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the lower court err when it allowed the state to introduce into evidence five envelopes of marijuana which were found in appellant's vehicle during a search subsequent to his arrest?

Text: Officer Ray Pitts testified that he and Officer Seavey staked out Cupid's Lounge in order to observe Gregory Jones. After about fifteen minutes, they received a call from Officers Foreman and Norton stating that marijuana had been found at Jones's residence and advising them to arrest him. When the officers approached Jones, he entered his car and attempted to leave. He was placed in custody and his car was searched. A quantity of marijuana was found under the front carpet on the driver's side. Jones asserts that the marijuana obtained during the search of his vehicle should not have been admitted as evidence because he had not been placed under valid arrest. Officers Pitts and Seavey arrested Jones without benefit of an arrest warrant; therefore, the first question is whether the arresting officers had sufficient probable cause to make a valid warrantless arrest. Rule 1.02 of the Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice states, in part: An officer may arrest any person without a warrant under the following circumstances:       (3) When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe a felony has been committed and the person proposed to be arrested committed it. The case law supports this rule. See Riddles v. State, 471 So.2d 1234 (Miss. 1985); Hanner v. State, 465 So.2d 306 (Miss. 1985); Gandy v. State, 438 So.2d 279 (Miss. 1983); Scruggs v. State, 412 So.2d 732 (Miss. 1981); Powell v. State, 394 So.2d 326 (Miss. 1981); Jones v. State, 358 So.2d 414 (Miss. 1978). In Swanier v. State, 473 So.2d 180 (Miss. 1985) this Court stated: The existence of probable cause or reasonable grounds justifying an arrest without a warrant is determined by factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act. The determination depends upon the particular evidence and circumstances of the individual case.  Id. at 186, quoting Smith v. State, 386 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Miss. 1980). In the instant case, the officers had ample grounds to believe that a felony had been committed. Prior to the arrest, Officer Pitts had received information from the confidential informant that drugs would be under the front floorboard of the vehicle. More important was the information provided Seavey and Pitts, via police radio, that more than one ounce of marijuana had been located at Jones's residence. This Court has held that official information received by radio may form the basis of probable cause to arrest. Covan v. State, 374 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1979); Hamburg v. State, 248 So.2d 430 (Miss. 1971); Fuqua v. State, 246 Miss. 191, 145 So.2d 152 (1962). It was sufficiently established that Jones was the person who committed the felony. A power bill had been used to determine that the residence at 2431 Eleanor Street was that of Gregory Jones. Also, in addition to seeing the marijuana at Jones's house, the informant had seen Jones selling marijuana from his (Jones's) car and had so informed the police. Such was sufficient grounds for the officers to suspect and believe that Jones had committed the felony; therefore, the arrest was valid. The law is clear that a police officer has the authority to search the person arrested incident to a lawful arrest. Sanders v. State, 403 So.2d 1288 (Miss. 1981); Anderson v. State, 397 So.2d 81 (Miss. 1981); Gregg v. State, 374 So.2d 1301 (Miss. 1979); Murphy v. State, 239 So.2d 162 (Miss. 1970); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 573 (Miss. 1968); Amis v. State, 204 So.2d 848 (Miss. 1967). It is also apparent that an automobile passenger compartment may be subject to search incident to a lawful arrest. See Sanders, 403 So.2d 1288; Anderson, 397 So.2d 81. In Anderson, this Court noted: The limited search of the automobile without a warrant was also lawful, being incident to the lawful arrest of the driver, Anderson... . The officer was justified in looking under the seat for a weapon. Once there, he had the right to seize the open money pouch which was in plain view. (citations omitted) Id. In the case at bar, Jones was sitting behind the wheel of his car attempting to start it at the time he was arrested. A search of the vehicle revealed a bulge under the carpet near the place where Jones had been sitting. That search was incident to a lawful arrest and, therefore, proper. This assignment is without merit.