Facts
Ligpens and McCarthy were observing pedestrians in an area known for narcotics activity. Both officers saw two pedestrians looking around while they were walking. The officers then saw each reach into their pockets and exchange items. The officers approached the suspects and arrested them. A search turned up balloons of heroin and cash.
Procedural History
Cunha filed a motion to dismiss the information, which the superior court denied.
Issue(s)
Did the superior court err in denying Cunha’s motion to dismiss the information?
Holding(s)
Yes.
Reasoning/Analysis
The Court found that before an officer detains an individual for questioning, he must be able to point to specific and articulable facts. To constitute probable cause for arrest, a state of facts must be known that would lead a man of ordinary care to believe that the person arrested is guilty. Neither Cunha’s activities nor the location of his arrest provided probable cause for arrest. Although specialized knowledge may render suspicious what would appear innocent to a layman, the test remains a man of reasonable caution.
Judgment/Outcome
The Court reversed the judgment of the superior court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment