State v. Bell

Decision Date02 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-K-2151,80-K-2151
Citation395 So.2d 805
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Donald Ray BELL.
CourtLouisiana 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.

CHIASSON, Justice Ad Hoc. *

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:

"Arrest is the taking of one person into custody of another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint of the person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him."

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:

"Probable cause to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonable and trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a man of average caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing an offense. State v. Wilkens, 364 So.2d 934 (La.1978); State v. Johnson, 363 So.2d 684 (La.1978); State v. Marks, 337 So.2d 1177 (La.1976). Although mere suspicion cannot justify an arrest, State v. Thomas, 349 So.2d 270 (La.1977), the officer does not need sufficient proof to convict. State v. Randolph, 337 So.2d 498 (La.1976).

"One of the most important elements in determining whether probable cause existed is satisfied when the police know a crime has actually been committed. When a crime has been committed and the police know it, they only have to determine whether there is reasonably trustworthy information to justify a man of ordinary caution in believing the person to be arrested has committed the crime. In many cases the police do not know that a crime has been committed. When the arrest or search is made when the police do not know that a crime has been committed, more and better evidence is needed to prove that probable cause exists for the arrest than is the case when the police know a crime has been committed. State v. Johnson, supra." (See also State v. Mosley, 390 So.2d 1302 (La.1980), No. 67,562).

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
39 cases
  • State v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • June 4, 1987
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • April 8, 1992
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • December 11, 2001
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • March 1, 1982
    ...... 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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT