Opinion ID: 1658248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was kelly's statement admitted as a fruit of an illegal arrest?

Text: Appellant charges that the statement he gave to the police was the product of an illegal arrest and should have been suppressed. To support his contention for an illegal arrest, the appellant asserts that he was not advised by the arresting officers of the object and cause of his arrest, and that the state failed to introduce the arrest warrant. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-3-7 (1972) requires that In all cases of arrest without a warrant, the person making such arrest must inform the accused of the object and cause of the arrest... . Appellant's argument is refuted by the fact that he admitted that he was informed of the cause for his arrest by the arresting officer at the scene. However, there is some conflict in the appellant's testimony; at one point, he indicated that he was not informed of the cause of his arrest. In Boyd v. State, 406 So.2d 824 (Miss. 1981), we stated that when a defendant testifies that he was not advised of the reason for his arrest, the burden of proof shifts to the state to show that there was probable cause for the issuance of a warrant or reasonable cause for making of the charge. In the instant case, there is ample evidence of probable cause for arrest. The probable cause to arrest Kelly was obtained by the oral statements given by his brother and brother-in-law, which placed him at the scene of the crime. A warrant for his arrest was broadcast over the police radio while Kelly was being questioned by two officers. Obviously these arresting officers had probable cause for the arrest. Compare Torrence v. State, 283 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1973) (Officer who knew of outstanding warrant had probable cause to arrest defendant). Additionally, as previously stated, the record reflects that the appellant was indeed informed of the reason for his arrest. Appellant next contends that the state was required to introduce the arrest warrant. We disagree. In Anderson v. State, 397 So.2d 81 (Miss. 1981), an officer was informed of an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Anderson by police radio. Although the warrant was not in the officer's possession, the Court held that this in itself was sufficient probable cause for the arrest. The Court held that the arrest was lawful, although the warrant was never introduced into evidence. Id. at 84. Appellant's first assignment of error is, therefore, without merit.