Court Opinion

ID: 9698219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:45:03.22395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:46.874415
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result of the opinion, but for reasons different from those given by the majority.
*509Based upon Orricer v. Erickson, 471 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1973), I conclude that the initial stop of the vehicle in this case was not an unreasonable intrusion. The officer knew a robbery had been committed by two males. The truck was stopped approximately five minutes after the robbery at a point in close proximity to the location of the crime. It was close to 9:00 in the evening and the traffic in the area was extremely light. Although Orricer, supra, involved a stop in the early morning hours, the investigatory stop did not take place until an hour after the discovery of the burglary. The time span between the discovery of the crime and the stop in the present case was much shorter. In Orricer, supra, the court stated, “Under the circumstances, we think the police acted reasonably in stopping individuals and autos within the vicinity of the crime for the purpose of requesting identification.” Id. at 1207. I reach the same conclusion based upon my above discussion in this case.
I do not reach the question of whether an arrest occurred at the location of the initial stop; even if an arrest occurred, it was invalid because at that point Officer Chandler did not have probable cause to make an arrest. Although the clothing and height descriptions matched those of the suspects, they were dressed in blue jeans, common attire for the area, and were of common height, six feet and five feet eight inches tall. They were stopped on a street which the majority labeled a logical escape route, but any road in the vicinity could be labeled an escape route, barring any precise definition for the phrase. Officer Chandler testified that he knew that all three suspects had been involved with violations of the law in the past, and two of them had been connected with a prior burglary. Although I think it is questionable whether an officer can consider such knowledge of previous criminal involvement as a basis for probable cause to arrest, particularly in cases where there is very little additional evidence linking a suspect to a particular crime, I will not pass on the propriety of this final consideration in this case, because even with that knowledge I conclude that the officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest at the location of the initial stop. Therefore, at the time the suspects were returned to the scene of the crime for identification purposes, they had not been validly arrested.
While the subsequent search of the truck at the scene of the crime was not a search incident to arrest, it was conducted under conditions presenting probable cause and exigent circumstances. See State v. Catlette, S.D., 221 N.W.2d 25 (1974). A lineup had been conducted and the defendant was identified by the employees of the grocery store. This identification, coupled with the information known at the time of the initial stop, and the connection of a pickup, fitting a description similar to the one stopped, to the scene where some checks and a cash drawer had been found, constituted probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle at that point. All of this information, together with the change and keys to the cash register and deposit bag found during the search of the truck, constituted probable cause for the subsequent formal arrest of the defendant at the scene of the crime.
I concur in the remaining portions of the majority opinion and conclude that the conviction of the defendant should be affirmed.