Opinion ID: 2217146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the introduction of the shoes and the trousers.

Text: If defendant's arrest was valid, he concedes the shoes and the trousers taken at that time were properly admitted into evidence. His argument is that this physical evidence should have been rejected because the arrest was invalid. The arrest was made without an arrest warrant. It therefore must be justified under our statutory provision relating to warrantless arrests. We set out a portion of section 804.7, The Code 1979, which provides as follows: A peace officer may make an arrest... without a warrant: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the peace officer's presence. 2. Where a public offense has in fact been committed, and the peace officer has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it. 3. Where the peace officer has reasonable ground for believing that an indictable public offense has been committed and has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested has committed it. 4. Where the peace officer has received from the department of public safety, or from any other peace officer of this state or any other state or the United States an official communication by bulletin, radio, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise, informing the peace officer that a warrant has been issued and is being held for the arrest of the person to be arrested on a designated charge. If defendant's arrest is to be held valid, the circumstances must bring it within the second of the above four paragraphs dealing with warrantless arrests. We hold they do. We have considered arrests made without a warrant on numerous occasions. Whether there is probable cause to arrest must be decided on the particular facts of each case. State v. Evans, 193 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Iowa 1972). What constitutes probable cause should be resolved on probabilities based on practical considerations, not on legal technicalities. State v. Shane, 255 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa 1977); State v. Morris, 227 N.W.2d 150, 152 (Iowa 1975); Evans, 193 N.W.2d at 517. There is nothing in defendant's arrest and the subsequent use of evidence taken pursuant thereto which entitles him to a new trial. At the time of defendant's arrest, the police had the following information. Hill's body had been discovered in his apartment under circumstances which clearly indicated a homicide; the defendant was known to have associated with decedent and had been with him the last time he was seen alive; defendant, arguably, had in his possession a social security card belonging to decedent; defendant, again arguably, either tried to flush this card down the toilet or accidentally dropped it; and when confronted with this card, defendant reacted in a manner belying innocent possession or denial of possession altogether. We believe the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant. The police need not have firm evidence which might lead to a conviction, or even to an indictment, but merely sufficient information to cause a reasonable man to believe that defendant was involved in Hill's murder. State v. Harvey, 242 N.W.2d 330, 340-41 (Iowa 1976). There may, of course, be other and entirely innocent explanations for why defendant had Hill's social security card. However, when such a document turns up in the possession of one known to have been with the decedent near the time of his death, it is not unreasonable for the police to conclude that person had some part in bringing about the death. In considering the validity of the arrest, it makes no difference whether defendant purposely or inadvertently dropped them in the toilet. The fact that he had the victim's social security card is the important point. Defendant's argument someone else may have left the social security card in the restroom, either immediately before or immediately after he was there, loses any persuasive effect it might otherwise have when we consider the fact that card was found with defendant's own hospital identification card. We hold there was probable cause to arrest defendant. It follows, as defendant admits, the shoes and trousers were admissible at his trial as fruits of a search incidental to a valid arrest.