Opinion ID: 2758259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Basis for Probable Cause

Text: Mr. Brinson was arrested based on his connection with C.H.’s prostitution activity. We must ask: Did arresting officers have a sufficient basis on which to arrest Mr. Brinson for his involvement with C.H.’s prostitution? Based on the record, we conclude that probable cause existed. When Mr. Brinson was arrested, arresting officers knew five facts: 1. While C.H. was in Room 123 with Officer Osterdyk, someone was warning her via text message: “Don’t do nothing. That’s the police.” 2. While providing back-up to Officer Osterdyk, officers observed a black SUV, bearing a “Jani-King” logo on its side, moving slowly near Room 123. 3. Room 123 was rented that evening by Tarran Brinson. 4. When officers saw Mr. Brinson, he matched the motel clerk’s description of the person who had rented Room 123 and the 19 photo identification of “Tarran Brinson” included in the registration form for that room. 5. Mr. Brinson admitted that he had rented Room 123 that evening, drove a black SUV with a “Jani-King” logo on its side, and had driven the SUV past Room 123 that evening. 7 IV Aplt. App. at 503-505, 512, 657-59. Based on this evidence, authorities had probable cause to believe Mr. Brinson had directed C.H.’s prostitution. Thus, the district court did not err in denying Mr. Brinson’s motion to suppress.