Opinion ID: 78335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Probable Cause for Parker's Arrest

Text: Parker maintains that his attorneys failed to: (1) question the prosecution's witnesses concerning the inaccuracies in the informant's statements or the affidavit executed in support of the search warrant; (2) provide for an adequate foundation for suppression of Parker's statement, and (3) adequately demonstrate that the law enforcement officers lacked probable cause for his arrest. He argues that evidence that the police approached his residence with their guns drawn and patted him down inside his home indicates that he was arrested inside his home. He contends that no intervening circumstances extinguished the taint of his illegal arrest and thus made his statement inadmissible. He asserts that his attorneys should have called Colbert County Sheriff's Office Investigator Doug Hargett who conceded that probable cause did not exist when Parker was taken into custody. At the suppression hearing, Hargett testified that he and three other officers arrived at Parker's residence on 31 March 1988, observed the residence for 30 to 45 minutes, and were advised by May to move in after the VCR information was verified. Exh. Vol. 1 at 199-200; Exh. Vol. 2 at 214; Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 1059. They then knocked on the door and asked Parker to come out. As the officers approached the residence, they observed Parker looking out of a window and heard what sounded [like] someone ... running through the apartment. Exh. Vol. 2 at 213-14. Angela Fountain, who was in the residence, began screaming, and she and Tony Lakey were ordered out of the apartment. The police again ordered Parker out of the apartment and, after he stepped out, the officers patted him down and advised him of his rights. Fountain and Lakey both remembered seeing the officers' guns drawn as they approached. The officers then asked Parker and Fountain to go downtown to be questioned. Parker and Fountain, accompanied by an officer, drove to the Colbert County Sheriff's Department. [30] At the Sheriff's Office, Parker was given Miranda [31] warnings by Hargett and May before he made any statements. The warrant for Parker's arrest was issued the next day, 1 April 1988. During the post-conviction hearing, Hargett admitted that the officers had their guns drawn when they approached Parker's residence at 2613 Huntsville Road in Florence, Alabama to follow up on information that they had received from a confidential informant but stated that they did not plan to arrest Parker. [32] Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 978-79, 983-84, 986, 992, 1007, 1059. As they approached the residence, Hargett said that they heard screams and saw Fountain in the doorway. Hargett explained that they then ordered Fountain and Lakey out of the residence. Hargett said that, once Parker appeared in the foyer, the officers asked him if they could speak with him and put away their weapons. Parker was patted down for weapons inside his living room and then ordered out of the residence. At the officers' request, Parker and Fountain agreed to accompany the officers to the Colbert County Sheriff's Office and to allow Lauderdale County Sheriff's Investigator Charles Perkins to ride with them. Hargett explained that Perkins rode with Parker and Fountain to prevent them from discussing the murder. Although Parker was not arrested until after he was interviewed at the Colbert County Sheriff's Office, Hargett opined that Parker was subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence. May stated that he was told by the district attorney that Parker had been subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence, and said that the arrest report also showed that Parker was arrested at his residence. Hargett was asked whether, after receiving confirmation from the other investigators about their search for the VCR, he had probable cause to arrest Parker. He responded that such information would have given us more probable cause but said he did not make a decision as to whether they would have had probable cause to arrest Parker at that time. Id. at 985. Because of concerns for public safety and the expeditious apprehension of criminals charged with heinous crimes, law enforcement officers with reasonable cause to believe that an individual has engaged in a felony may arrest without a warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156-57, 45 S.Ct. 280, 286, 69 L.Ed.2d 543 (1925). Probable cause exists where the facts and totality of the circumstances, as collectively known to the law enforcement officers and based on reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to cause a person of reasonably caution to believe an offense has been or is being committed. United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975, 978 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Roy, 869 F.2d 1427, 1433 (11th Cir.1989). In determining probable cause based in part on confidential informant information, a court should consider not only the totality of the circumstances but also the closely intertwined issues of the informant's basis for knowledge, reliability, and veracity. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Under the Fourth Amendment, police are prohibited from making a warrantless arrest and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 588-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Such an arrest may be made, however, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed an offense and where exigent circumstances exist which make obtaining a warrant imprudent, see Payton, 445 U.S. at 589, 100 S.Ct. at 1381. Such exigent circumstances may include (1) the violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed; (3) probable cause to believe that suspect committed the crime; (4) firm reasons to believe that the suspect is in the home; (5) a reasonable belief the delay could allow for the destruction of essential evidence; (6) a reasonable belief that delay could jeopardize the safety of the law enforcement officers or the public; and (7) a peaceful state of the entry. Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538, 546 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Evidence, including verbal statements, obtained as a result of an unlawful search are subject to exclusion. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Although its purpose is to prevent lawless conduct by law enforcement officials, the exclusionary rule is not to be interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2260, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (quotation marks and citation omitted). An inquiry as to the applicability of the exclusionary rule must address whether the evidence or fruit of the poisonous tree was obtained by the exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable [from the illegal action] as to be purged of the primary taint. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 417 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Where, however, the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the prosecution's use of the defendant's statement made outside of his home, even if the statement was taken after an illegal arrest made in the home. Harris, 495 U.S. at 21, 110 S.Ct. at 1644-45. In this case, the question is whether the information known to the law enforcement officers at the moment of Parker's courthouse confession was sufficient to establish probable cause for his arrest. Probable cause was based on corroborated information from a female confidential informant and not from verifiable false information from a male informant. Probable cause was based on both the detailed public information provided by the informant and the specific information regarding the VCR. Parker is unable to show prejudice or unreasonable performance by his counsel because the evidence of the male informant had no bearing on the court's admissibility of his statement. Parker is also unable to show prejudice or deficient performance as a result of Hargett's statement during the post-conviction hearing that Parker was subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence. Hargett did not possess all of the information regarding probable cause, did not make the decision about probable cause, and did not ultimately make a determination about the admissibility of Parker's statement. On direct appeal, the state appellate court noted that the facts supplying probable cause for Parker's arrest were virtually identical to those identified in Williams, 565 So.2d at 1236. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1088. In addressing ineffective assistance of counsel, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that Parker had failed to demonstrate prejudice because his claims concerning arrest at home and intervening events are irrelevant because the trial court found that the tip of an anonymous informant was sufficiently corroborated to supply probable cause for [Parker's] arrest. Exh. PC Vol. 16, Tab 61 at 2. Further, at the time of Parker's statement, he was outside of his home and the police had probable cause for his arrest. His statement was, therefore, admissible. See Harris, 495 U.S. at 21, 110 S.Ct. at 1644-45. The district court correctly held that the state court reasonably applied Strickland 's prejudice element because further evidence of an in-home arrest would not have affected the admissibility of Parker's statement. Parker is also unable to prove deficient performance because this evidence was cumulative. The trial court heard Fountain and Lakey's testimony that Parker did not go out of his house when called by the officers and that the officers went into the house looking for him with their guns drawn and still admitted his statement. Because the police had probable cause to arrest Parker when he made his statement, his statement was admissible regardless of whether or not he was arrested in his home. The district court correctly held that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of law.