State v. Bell
Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-K-2151,80-K-2151 |
Citation | 395 So.2d 805 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Donald Ray BELL. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Alton T. Moran, Public Defender, M. Michele Fournet, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kay Kirkpatrick, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.
*
On application of defendant, Donald Ray Bell, we granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the trial court overruling his motions to suppress the physical evidence and the confession obtained from him. Finding no merit in his contentions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In the early morning hours of Tuesday, November 13, 1979, Ted Belton left his home in East Baton Rouge Parish for his job in Morgan City. He returned from Morgan City on the following Saturday, the 17th of November. Upon arriving home, he noticed that the back door to his home had been broken open; two watches and a large amount of change were missing. He called the police and reported the incident. Officer James E. Moore of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office was dispatched to the scene to investigate. Upon arrival, Moore spoke to Belton and Belton's neighbor. While so engaged, defendant Donald Ray Bell and another youth walked by. Belton's neighbor stated that Bell had been sitting on Belton's step while he was gone. In addition, she pointed out the wrist watch that Bell was wearing, stating that he never wore a watch before.
Upon hearing this information, Officer Moore instructed fellow officer Richard Farrell to locate and return the pair to the scene. Farrell found the pair at Mae's Cafe, a local establishment. Although not formally placing them under arrest, Farrell noticed a watch on Bell's arm and transported the two back to Belton's residence.
Belton identified the watch on Bell's arm as being his own. He recognized the make (Timex), the band, and the rattle it made when it was shaken. At this point, Officer Moore placed the defendant under formal arrest. The wrist watch was taken from the defendant as evidence. The pair was transported to the sheriff's substation where Bell made a statement confessing to the break-in and theft.
The defendant was subsequently charged, presumably with simple burglary and theft, violations of La.R.S. 14:62 and 14:67. Defendant filed and argued motions to suppress the watch and the statement but both motions were denied by the trial court. The matter is now before this Court on a writ taken by defendant seeking review of these rulings.
Bell complains in two assignments that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress the evidence and the confession. Defendant argues that the watch was seized incident to an arrest for which there was no probable cause and that the confession was obtained by exploitation of that initial illegality.
"Arrest" is defined by La.C.Cr.P. art. 201 as follows:
Furthermore, "(i)t is the circumstances indicating an intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of an accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer's statement: 'You are under arrest,' that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made." State v. Tomasetti, 381 So.2d 420, pg. 423 (La.1980).
A warrantless arrest must be based on probable cause. State v. Thomas, 349 So.2d 270 (La.1977).
In State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928, pg. 930 (La.1979), this Court sets out the applicable standard for testing probable cause to arrest as follows:
In the present case, the state and defendant disagree about the timing of the instant arrest. The state claims that the defendant was arrested after Belton recognized the watch on defendant's wrist as his own. Certainly an arrest at that point was supported by probable cause; defendant was observed wearing a watch identified by the victim as stolen in a recent burglary. Were the watch seized pursuant to that arrest, it would clearly be admissible at trial.
Defendant contends, on the other hand, that he was placed under arrest by Officer Farrell at Mae's Cafe. It is fairly clear that Farrell did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant at that time. He knew only that Officer Moore was investigating a burglary and theft and that he wanted to talk with these two fellows. It must be determined whether Officer Farrell's action at the cafe amounted to an arrest.
Officer Farrell testified that he found the defendant and his companion sitting at a table in Mae's Cafe. He approached them and requested that they return with him to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wheeler
...... State v. Gardner, 28 Wash.App. 721, 626 P.2d 56, review denied, 95 Wash.2d 1027 (1981) (suspect driven six blocks). Many of these cases, however, have involved some additional factor making transportation acceptable. See, e.g., State v. Bell, 395 So.2d 805 (La.1981); Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923 (D.C.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852, 102 S.Ct. 295, 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981) (defendants consented to the transportation); People v. Lippert, 89 Ill.2d 171, 59 Ill.Dec. 819, 432 N.E.2d 605, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 841, 103 S.Ct. ......
-
State v. Powell
...... State v. Morvant, 384 So.2d 765 (La.1980); State v. Billiot, 370 So.2d 539 (La.), cert. denied 444 U.S. 935, 100 S.Ct. 284, 62 L.Ed.2d 194 (1979). Mere suspicion will not justify an arrest, but proof sufficient to convict is not required. State v. Bell, 395 So.2d 805 (La.1981); State v. Randolph, 337 So.2d 498 (La.1976); State v. Massey, 535 So.2d 1135 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988). . Furtive action and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea, and when coupled with specific knowledge on the ......
-
State v. David M. Seymour
...... identification proposes was proper when it did not. "unduly prolong the detention"); People v. Lippert (1982), 89 Ill.2d 171, 432 N.E.2d 605 (two to. three mile transportation of suspect for identification. showup is a legitimate investigatory procedure); State v. Bell (1981), 395 So.2d 805 (proper to take suspects from. restaurant to nearby burglary scene); United States v. Medina (C.A.6, 1993), 992 F.2d 573 (authorities. apprehended a fleeing suspect and returned him to crime. scene). . . In the. case sub judice, we thus conclude that. ......
-
State v. Vaccaro
...... LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 703(C); LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Dison, 396 So.2d 1254 (La.1981); State v. Bell, 395 So.2d 805 (La.1981); State v. Haynie, 395 So.2d 669 (La.1981). The admission of a confession in the first instance is a question for the trial judge. His conclusions on the credibility and weight of testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession for the purpose of admissibility will ......