State v. Mooney
| Decision Date | 27 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-375A68,2-375A68 |
| Citation | 398 N.E.2d 698 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. William Thomas MOONEY and Roger Wayne Ebel, Appellees (Defendants Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Spear, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellant.
The State brings this appeal pursuant to Ind.Code 35-1-43-2 on a reserved question of law concerning the granting of defendants' Motion to Suppress Evidence obtained during a warrantless search of their vehicle. The trial court found insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to search the vehicle. The defendants were acquitted.
We find the trial court correctly suppressed the evidence.
On June 28, 1973 the Indiana State Police received a teletype message from the State of Georgia, based on a communication from unnamed sources in Florida, reporting that a semi-trailer carrying large quantities of marijuana was enroute to the Wabash, Indiana vicinity. The message described the vehicle as an orange tractor pulling an aluminum trailer, both bearing Florida license plates with part of the tractor's front grill missing and the name "Mooney" printed on the side of the tractor. Two men were involved, one possibly driving a lead car. No description of the men was given.
On June 30, 1973 a vehicle partially matching this description was seen in the Wabash area. The trailer was aluminum with Florida plates. The tractor was orange but the grill was complete and it had "Avis" written on it. The police observed the vehicle for nearly two hours before stopping it for driving without its lights on. Upon learning through a license inspection the driver's name was Mooney the officers ordered both defendants out of the vehicle. They arrested Mooney for driving without headlights. A search of the trailer ensued, whereupon the marijuana was found.
At the suppression hearing the officers testified the decision to search the truck was made prior to the headlight violation. They based their actions on the information received from Georgia. There were no facts adduced at the hearing to substantiate the reliability of or the basis for the information contained in the dispatch.
We are not here presented with the propriety of the officers stopping the vehicle but, rather, with the propriety of the warrantless search of the vehicle. As a warrantless search the State must fit the actions within one of the exceptions of the warrant requirement or demonstrate the existence of probable cause. Cooper v. State (1976), Ind.App., 357 N.E.2d 260. Here the State has chosen in its appellate brief to pursue the latter course.
The facts necessary to demonstrate the existence of probable cause as to a warrantless search are not materially different from those which would authorize the issuance of a warrant if presented to a magistrate. Whiteley v. Warden (1971), 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306; Chambers v. Maroney (1978), 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419. The existence of probable cause at the time of the search rests on the information contained in the dispatch from Georgia and the circumstances present at the time of the search.
It is well established in Indiana that the knowledge of the entire police force may be imputed to an arresting or searching officer. Clark v. State (1977), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 761, and cases cited therein.
Nevertheless, "an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest." Whiteley v. Warden, supra. Thus, if it is to serve as justification for a warrantless arrest, the information within one police department must be "reasonably trustworthy" and meet the tests of Beck v. Ohio ((1964), 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142), and Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723.
Francis v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 371, 316 N.E.2d 416, 418.
In the instant case the officers received certain information through police channels. However, the record does not indicate any information to support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. State
...of a warrant if presented to a magistrate. Whiteley v. Warden, (1971) 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306; State v. Mooney, (1979) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 698. The record indicates Officer Davidson had interviewed the PTS manager before going to Harrison's apartment and knew certain it......
-
Rihl v. State
...a probable cause affidavit presented to a magistrate, but it applies with equal force to the present situation. State v. Mooney (4th Dist.1979) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 698, 699 (and cases cited therein).4 Rihl does not challenge the accuracy or sufficiency of the basic facts supplied by the in......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind.
...to an arresting or searching officer.” Mayfield v. State, 402 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) ( citing State v. Mooney, 398 N.E.2d 698, 700 (Ind.Ct.App.1979)). Unlike the majority, I am not inclined to disregard evidence that the tipster's identity was known, regardless of the Stat......
-
People v. Ramirez
...N.Y.S.2d at pp. 232, 230, 430 N.E.2d at pp. 1285, 1283; see also State v. Trenidad (1979) 23 Wash.App. 418, 595 P.2d 957; State v. Mooney (Ind.App.1979) 398 N.E.2d 698.) The Whiteley "fellow officer" or "collective knowledge" reasoning has also been applied to computer errors concerning aut......