Court Opinion

ID: 9446120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:46:36.278038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:31.856564
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with my brothers that the police officer acted reasonably in (1) stopping the car in which appellant and his companion were riding without lights at 3:30 A.M., (2) flashing his light about the back seat, and (3) ordering both men out of the car when one of the occupants made a gesture reaching under the seat.1
*88At that point, the officer could properly have arrested both men for driving without lights. It may even be, although I do not decide, that an arrest would have been proper upon other charges. But the arrest here was rested on a charge of “suspicion of housebreaking.” There is no such crime. Hence the arrest is illegal. And it is illegal even if we read the charge as one for the crime of housebreaking. The officer, as his statement of the charge indicates, had only “suspicion” because no housebreaking had occurred in his presence and he was not even aware that one had occurred outside his presence. Probable cause and not mere suspicion is essential for a valid arrest.
Since the search was not incident to a valid arrest, the evidence seized is barred. I therefore dissent from the court’s decision approving the admission of such evidence.

. The search revealed no weapons.