Court Opinion

ID: 9855911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:34:10.827326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:17.092372
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent, concluding the majority erred in upholding the warrantless arrest, and search incident to arrest, of appellant Daniel Alan Retford.
In State v. Martin, 275 S. C. 141, 268 S. E. (2d) 105, 107 (1980), we held “an officer can arrest for a misdemeanor (not committed in his presence) when the facts and circumstances observed by the officer give him probable cause to believe that a crime has been freshly committed.”
Here, the officers did not personally observe anything. They relied on what a witness told them, in making the warrantless arrest of appellant for auto tampering, a misdemeanor. The arresting officers testified they saw no crime committed, until the pistol was discovered during the pat-down after the warrantless arrest, and they did not have enough information to arrest the appellant for auto theft. Officer Morris testified as follows:
“Q. Now, when you first saw Mr. Retford, tell the Court, if you can, what crime he was doing at that time?
“A. When I first saw him?
“Q. That’s right.
“A. I saw Mr. Retford commit no crime.
“Q. All right. Did you later see him commit any crime?
“A. No, sir.” (Tr. p. 32, ff. 11-17.)
*662“Q. Did you make an arrest of Mr. Retford for the auto theft, Officer?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Have you since?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. So you didn’t have enough information to arrest him on that charge?
“A. No, sir.” (Tr. p. 35, ffi 17-24.)
The appellant was taken to the police station, searched further, and a small quantity of marijuana seized from his person.
I agree with the appellant’s contention that the arrest and search of his person were not justified, and that as a consequence the pistol and marijuana found upon his person were improperly introduced into evidence. Although the informant’s information certainly pointed the finger of suspicion, the appellant did not commit an unlawful act personally observed by the arresting officers which can support a lawful arrest. An officer may arrest for a misdemeanor without an arrest warrant when a pubic offense is committed in his presence.1 State v. Mims 263 S. C. 45, 48, 208 S. E. (2d) 288 (1974).
Before information from an informant will serve as the foundation for probable cause, it is necessary to establish the basis for the officer’s belief that the information is reliable. If that reliability is established, then the arrest will be upheld as valid. Here, it was not so established. McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 87 S. Ct. 1056 (1967); Draper v. U. S., 358 U. S. 307, 79 S. Ct. 329 (1959).
Moreover, where the information which connected a defendant to an unlawful act originated from the lips of a total *663stranger, and the arresting officers failed to verify the credibility of the information, or the reliability of its source, the arrest was invalid. Uncorroborated accusations by an informant whose identity and reliability remains untested cannot establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest. See: Holbrook v. U. S., 406 F. (2d) 44 (10th Cir. 1969).
Here, the arresting officers did not verify the credibility of the witness/informant nor the reliability of his information, therefore, this unverified information cannot constitute probable cause to validate the warrantless arrest. Unless there is probable cause to make the arrest, it is unlawful, and any search incident thereto is unreasonable. Mere suspicion cannot be deemed probable cause. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 85 S. Ct. 223 (1964).
The facts and circumstances, if any, observed by the arresting officers were insufficient to give them probable cause to make the warrantless arrest of appellant. The arrest was unlawful, the search incident to the arrest was unreasonable, and the pistol and marijuana which were seized should have been suppressed. U. S. v. Crews, 445 U. S. 463, 100 S. Ct. 1244, 63 L. Ed. (2d) 537 (1980).
I would reverse the convictions.
Reversed.

 Deputy Sheriffs and highway patrolmen can arrest under § 23-13-60 and 23-5-40, 1976 Code of Laws, for “freshly committed crime, whether upon view or upon prompt information . . .” State v. Martin, 268 S. E. (2d) at 107; or any officer may arrest to prevent a probable felony. State v. Sims, 16 S. C. 486, 494 (1881).