Court Opinion

ID: 9657032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:11:11.30514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.853802
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
COMMITTING OFFENSE IN PRESENCE OF OFFICER NOT ESTABLISHED
I join all of my Brothers on issue one that the validity of the arrest herein was not based on the commission of an offense which transpired within Lake’s “sensory perceptions” at the time of appel-lee/Baysinger’s arrest. In essence, the State failed to prove that Baysinger was committing an offense in Lake’s presence. Therefore, there was not probable cause to believe that Baysinger was in possession of cocaine.
*848NO PROBABLE CAUSE ESTABLISHED
On issue two, I respectfully dissent. It appears that the majority’s opinion, in reversing the trial court, is bottomed upon the trial court’s findings being clearly erroneous. I cannot agree to this conclusion, believing that those disposed to the majority’s viewpoint have substituted their judgment for the trial court’s judgment as to both the existence of the facts and then applying those facts to the pertinent law. Majority does not give the trial court’s findings proper deference. We must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s decision on factual findings. State v. Wilson, 297 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1980). This being a discretionary appeal, our action is to be governed by SDCL 23A-32-9 which expresses:
On appeal from a judgment the Supreme Court may review any order, ruling, or determination of the trial court, involving the merits and necessarily affecting the judgment and appearing upon the record including an order denying a new trial, and whether any such order, ruling, or determination is made before or after judgment. When the appeal is from an order subject to appeal, the Supreme Court may review all matters appearing on the record relevant to the question of whether the order appealed from is erroneous. (emphasis supplied mine).
Our scope of review is not de novo. A trial court’s findings of fact from a suppression hearing must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Pfaff, 456 N.W.2d 558 (S.D.1980). See, also, U.S. v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir.1987), for the holding that a trial court’s finding concerning probable cause to make a war-rantless arrest will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. As a reviewing court, under Pfaff, we are to determine if the findings are clearly against the weight of testimony. Can we say this? I think not.
The majority opinion cites State v. Glick, 87 S.D. 1, 201 N.W.2d 867 (1972) for the proposition that a mere suspicion by an officer is not enough to establish probable cause, but seemingly appears to disregard it. We are not the triers of the fact. At the conclusion of the opinion, the majority renders its version of the facts. You, the reader, have now read them. However, I wish to point out the trial judge’s observations of the state’s argument, at the trial court level, which is very insightful into the mind and legal rationale of the trial court:
1. Alan Baysinger’s “hurried behavior” at the Tom Baysinger residence when he observed the note left by UPS. (NOTE: This behavior was video taped; however, no evidence was introduced to indicate that Agent Lake had observed that video prior to the arrest, nor that other officers who observed such “behavior” transmitted it to him.)
2. Alan Baysinger accompanied Tom Baysinger to the UPS Center immediately thereafter to pick up the package of dope. (NOTE: Again the State fails to mention that only Tom Baysinger entered the UPS Center and that the package in and of itself was innocently wrapped. Additionally, while subsequent evidence showed that the package was opened in the Baysinger automobile, the evidence indicates that Agent Lake was not aware of that at the time of the arrest.
3. Alan Baysinger was at the Tom Bay-singer residence at the time of the search. (NOTE: The cocaine was being cut in the bedroom, and all evidence indicates that Alan Baysinger was in the livingroom.)
Therefore, I would affirm the trial court in its entirety, breathing life into settled law of this state that considering the law and facts, a judicial mind could have reached a similar decision. Peterson v. Peterson, 434 N.W.2d 732 (S.D.1990).