Court Opinion

ID: 9527531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:22.125636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:51.964373
License: Public Domain

CATES, Judge
(dissenting).
What I cannot digest is the contradiction in the arrest of the appellant.
I.
Reasoning backwards I find my Brother JOHNSON deducing:
“Here, the information within the knowledge of the police officers at the time of appellant’s arrest clearly furnished grounds for a reasonable cause for believing that appellant had committed the robbery in question. It was much more than a mere suspicion. * * * ”
Yet the main factual premise for this conclusion is stated:
“Officer Ralph Jordan testified that * * * a young blonde female, later identified as Diana Crosby, answered the door; that he asked her to bring everyone in the house downstairs and that she returned a few minutes later with appellant; and that he then informed them that they were under arrest. * * * ”
If it was necessary to bring “everyone” out of the house how can it be said that there was knowledge (within the constitutional standards) that appellant was present in the premises ?
II.
Perhaps it was reasonable to expect that the appellant was in his own home. However, I fail to see fresh pursuit or any other recognized exception to justify dragging him out of his home without a warrant.