State v. Love

• Decision Date: 18 November 1975
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Clarence W. LOVE.

Page 1035

363 A.2d 1035

169 Conn. 596

STATE of Connecticut v. Clarence W. LOVE.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 18, 1975.

Stephen F. Donahue, Sp. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Howard T. Owens, Jr., Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty. and Thomas E. Minogue, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ. HOUSE, Chief Justice.

The defendant was found guilty by the Superior Court (Tedesco, J.) of having under his control on August 19, 1971, certain narcotic drugs, heroin and cocaine. ¹ Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of guilty of being a habitual offender in violation of § 54-121 of the General Statutes. Before the trial, he had filed a motion to dismiss the information claiming that there was no probable cause for his arrest on August 19, 1971. On this appeal his sole claim of error is the court's (Tierney, J.) denial of that motion.

The court's finding of fact relevant to the motion to dismiss has not been attacked. It discloses that between 5:30 p.m. and 5:45 p.m., on August 19, 1971, Officer Alerise S. Best of the Bridgeport police department tactical unit received information from an informant that the defendant was coming by train to Bridgeport from New York City with some narcotics and that he might be accompanied by a female companion. The defendant was known to Best from prior narcotics investigations and the informant had previously furnished information which had led to four arrests and four convictions concerning narcotics. Later that evening, at approximately 9 p.m., Officers Best, Robert W. Golas and Earl W. Mellow drove to the Bridgeport railroad station in an unmarked car. There, Officer Best saw Love come from a tunnel under the railroad station with a female companion and get into a cab. Love sat behind the driver and his companion sat to the right of Love. The officers, in their car, followed the cab and near the intersection of Crescent Avenue and Pembroke Street they pulled alongside and Officer Mellow told the cab driver to stop, which he did. Thereupon Love started to exit from the cab and its interior light went on. At the same time, Love passed a brown paper bag to his female companion who opened the door on her side of the cab and dropped the bag outside the cab. Officer Best picked up the bag, opened it, and saw what he believed, on the basis of his training and experience, to be narcotics packaged in tinfoil and glassine envelopes. He informed Officer Mellow of his discovery and showed him the narcotics. Mellow then arrested Love. On these facts, the court denied the motion to dismiss the information, concluding that there was probable cause for the arrest.

The crime for which the defendant was arrested and charged was a felony. General Statutes § 1-1, as then in effect. The arrest was not made pursuant to a warrant, but a police officer may lawfully arrest without previous complaint or warrant any person whom he has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony. State v. Cobuzzi, 161 Conn. 371, 376, 288 A.2d 439, 442, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 677, 30 L.Ed.2d 644; State v. Wilson, 153 Conn. 39, 41, 212 A.2d 75; General Statutes § 6-49. As we observed in the Cobuzzi case (supra): "(R)easonable grounds to believe' is to be equated with probable cause. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; State v. Wilson, 153 Conn. 39, 41, 212 A.2d 75. '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; State v. Wilson, supra. In order to establish probable cause, it is not necessary to produce a quantum of evidence necessary to convict. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 311 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327; State v. Sweeney, 157 Conn. 485, 488, 255 A.2d 622; State v. Towles, 155 Conn. 516, 520, 235 A.2d 639; State v. Wilson,supra, 153 Conn. 42, 212 A.2d 75. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that a felony has been committed. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142; Brinegar v. United States, supra; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; State v. Towles, supra; State v. Wilson, supra; State v. Elliott, 153 Conn. 147, 152, 215 A.2d 108.'

The defendant's reliance upon the decision in Henry v. United States,361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, to support his contention that the arrest of the defendant occurred at the time that the taxicab driver was directed to pull over and stop is misplaced. Precisely when an arrest occurs is a question of fact which depends on an evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 67, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 261-62, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688. In the Henry case, federal agents had been investigating Henry, had him under surveillance and observed him loading packages into his car in an alley. There was nothing to connect his actions with any unlawful act and nevertheless the agents stopped his car, arrested him and searched. The prosecution, both at the trial and before the United States Supreme Court, conceded that the arrest took place when the federal agents stopped the car. In the present case, the facts as found by the court and hereinbefore recited are substantially different and are similar to those in Rios v. United States, supra. See also United States v. Rios, 192 F.Supp. 888 (S.D.Cal.), and State v. Watson, 165 Conn. 577, 345 A.2d 532. The defendant in this case was not arrested at the time the taxicab was ordered to stop but at that time was merely detained. As this court stated in State v. Watson, supra, 584-86, 345 A.2d at 537: 'Police have the right to stop for investigation short of arrest 'where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.' Terry v. Ohio, . . . (392 U.S. 1, 30, 33, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889). Furthermore, in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612, the court held that '(a) brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.' Effective crime prevention and detection underlie the recognition...