Court Opinion

ID: 9850936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:04:40.199279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.914991
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but cannot join the rationale. The trial judge’s reliance on the Fourth Amendment is unsupported by current precedent. The United States Supreme Court has never held a warrant is required to arrest a person for a misdemeanor not committed in the arresting officer’s presence. W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 5.1(b), at 403 (2d ed. 1987).
As a general rule, an Oklahoma peace officer cannot make a misdemeanor arrest unless the offense is committed in his presence. 22 O.S.1981, § 196(1). One of the exceptions to this rule is where a peace officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed an act of domestic abuse. 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 40.3(B); 22 O.S.Supp.1987, § 196(6). The record shows that Kingfisher Deputy Sheriff Barry Reilly arrested appellee in compliance with Section 40.3(B). Assuming arguendo the ar*388rest was illegal, the proper remedy was to exclude any evidence wrongfully obtained, but appellee “is not himself a suppressible ‘fruit,’ and the illegality of his detention cannot deprive the [State] of the opportunity to prove his guilt ... [with] ... evidence wholly untainted by the police misconduct.” United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980). The State did not introduce any evidence wrongfully obtained. Clearly, the trial judge erred as a matter of law in dismissing the case based solely on an illegal arrest.
This appeal on a reserved question of law does not affect the directed verdict of acquittal rendered by the trial court, see 22 O.S. 1981, § 850, but merely settles a question of law. See State v. Gray, 71 Okl.Cr. 309, 111 P.2d 514, 521 (1941). Thus, the question of law relating to misdemeanor arrests is settled, but appellee cannot be retried.