Peters v. State

• Decision Date: 31 October 1966
• Docket Number: No. 42311,No. 2,42311,2
• Citation: 114 Ga.App. 595,152 S.E.2d 647
• Parties: Dean R. PETERS v. The STATE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 647

152 S.E.2d 647

114 Ga.App. 595

Dean R. PETERS v. The STATE.

No. 42311.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Oct. 31, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

When the constitutional validity of an arrest without a warrant is challenged, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to introduce evidence of the facts upon which the arresting officers acted when making the arrest, to enable the trial court to determine whether the information available to the officers at the moment of the arrest would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the defendant had committed an offense. And when evidence of probable cause for belief that the defendant had committed an offense is not presented, evidence obtained without a search warrant through a search of the defendant incident to his arrest is not admissible at the trial.

A. L. Haden, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.

W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Sol. Gen., Frank K. Martin, Columbus, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

The defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence of 15 years for burglary, contending that he was arrested illegally without a warrant and that evidence obtained from his person without a search warrant after the arrest which he was under interrogation was therefore inadmissible at the trial. The constitutional validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence produced thereby depend upon whether the defendant's arrest without a warrant was lawful. Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 34, 41, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; Raif v. State, 109 Ga.App. 354, 136 S.E.2d 169.

Under Code § 27-207 an officer of this State may arrest without a warrant 'if the offense is committed in his presence, or the offender is endeavoring to escape, or for other cause there is likely to be a failure of justice for want of an officer to issue a warrant.' Whether or not the arrest violated this statute, the constitutional validity of the arrest without a warrant depends 'upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it-whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the (defendant) had committed or was committing an offense.' Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142. 'In dealing with probable cause, * * * as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879. There is also a great 'difference between what is required to prove guilt in a criminal case and what is required to show probable cause for arrest or search.' Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 311-312, 79 S.Ct. 329, 332, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. As Judge Learned Hand said in United States v. Heitner, 149 F.2d 105, 106 (C.A.2d Cir.): 'It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay evidence; and indeed,...