State v. Chronister

• Decision Date: 21 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. A-12845,A-12845
• Citation: 353 P.2d 493
• Parties: STATE of Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. L. CHRONISTER, Defendant in Error.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 493

353 P.2d 493

STATE of Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. L. CHRONISTER, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12845.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 21, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An officer may arrest at nighttime, without a warrant, any person whom he has reasonable cause for believing to have committed a felony, and is justified in making the arrest though it afterward appear that the felony had not been committed.

2. The use of the term 'probable cause' or 'reasonable cause' itself imports that there may not be absolute, irrefutable cause. If the facts are such that a reasonably prudent man would have believed accused guilty, and would have acted upon that belief, a police officer is justified in making an arrest without warrant, although subsequent events prove that no offense had been committed, or if committed, that accused had no connection with it, where the statute authorizes arrest without warrant when the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested had committed a felony, although not in his presence.

3. For the purpose of preserving the peace and to prevent crime, a peace officer or private citizen may make reasonable inquiry of persons coming under his observation or brought to his knowledge under circumstances which reasonably suggest that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

4. There is nothing unreasonable in an officer questioning persons outdoors at night, and when a response to a reasonable inquiry elicited evidence that the defendant may have been guilty of a crime, especially where, as here, the officers had numerous reports of burglaries in the area and when approached the suspect inadvertently exposed what the officer had good reason to believe was contraband, obtained in the commission of a felony.

This is an appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County; John B. McKeel, Judge, from an order sustaining a motion to suppress the evidence and to dismiss the case where defendant was charged with burglary in the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Reversed and remanded.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Ward, Jr., Ada, for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an appeal by the State of Oklahoma upon a reserved question of law based upon the action of the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, in sustaining the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and in dismissing the prosecution.

Briefly, the facts upon which the appeal is predicated are as hereinafter related. The defendant R. L. Chronister and his accomplice, Wilbur Brian (both known to be police characters by arresting officers, French and Kroth) about midnight on March 9, 1959, were observed in the vicinity of Steffen's Ice Cream plant carrying a 'tow' sack between them. The officers approached Chronister and Brian, whereupon the defendants immediately stopped and set down the sack, and the top part of the sack came open, exposing within the police car lights a considerable number of packages of Steffen's Ice Cream. The defendant Chronister and Brian were asked where they got the ice cream and they informed the officers that the ice cream had been given them at the Steffen's Ice Cream plant, which was located a half block away from the point of apprehension. The evidence discloses that the officers knew as a fact that recent acts of thievery had been prevalent in that area and they knew that Steffens was not open at that time of night. They were of the opinion that there was sufficient cause to believe that a felony had been committed and arrested the defendant and Brian. Thereafter, the officers took defendant and Brian to the police station, and subsequent investigation revealed the burglary of a Steffen's Ice Cream truck from which the ice cream had been removed. Upon this state of the record, the trial judge ruled that there was an unlawful search and seizure and sustained the motion to suppress. The state seeks a reversal of that holding on the theory that the police officers had reasonable grounds for believing that the defendants had committed a felony at the time that they were taken into custody.

The state bases this contention upon the provision of the statutes 22 O.S.A. § 196, reading in part as follows:

'A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

'1. For a public offense, committed or attempted in his presence.

'2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

'3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

'4. On a charge made upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party arrested'.

And 22 O.S.A. § 198 reads as follows:

'He may also at night, without a warrant, arrest any person whom he has reasonable cause for believing to have committed a felony, and is justified in making the arrest though it afterward appear that the felony had not been committed.'

The state makes no contention that an offense was committed in the officer's presence, but only that there was reasonable grounds to believe that Chronister and Brian had committed a felony at the time they were taken into custody. Hence, the sole question is whether the facts upon which the officers acted constitute sufficient grounds to sustain the arrests and seizure, under the law. In Heinzman v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 305, 283 P. 264, 265, the late Judge Edwards said:

'There is a wide distinction between the right to arrest without a warrant in felony and in misdemeanor cases. The law recognizes a greater urgency in felony cases. Thus an officer does not have a right to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence, but contemplates that he shall procure a warrant before making the arrest. Where a felony has been committed, however, though not in the presence of the officer, he may arrest without a warrant, or where a felony has been committed and the officer has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it, or upon a charge based upon reasonable cause of the commission of a felony, Gaines v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 353, 230 P. 946.'

See also Darks v. State, Okl.Cr., 273 P.2d 880. This court has consistently held to the foregoing interpretation of the law in such cases. Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 502, State v. Lumley, 83 Okl.Cr., 430, 178 P.2d 629. In Welch v. State, 30 Okl.Cr. 330, 236 P. 68, 70, this court quoted from the Supreme Court of the United States in Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, as follows:

'In an opinion written by Chief Justice Taft, this statement occurs: 'If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense had been committed, it is sufficient. * * * If a constable or other peace officer arrest a person without a warrant, he is not bound to show in his justification a felony actually committed, to render the arrest lawful; but if he suspects one on his own knowledge or facts; or upon facts communicated to him by others, and thereupon he has reasonable ground to believe that the accused has been guilty of felony, the arrest is not unlawful. But, as we have seen, good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause. That faith must be grounded on facts * * * which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable.''

And on page 341 of 30 Okl.Cr., at page 72 of 236 P. it is further stated in the body of the opinion:

'The use of the term 'probable cause' or 'reasonable cause' itself imports that there may not...