State v. Riddle

• Decision Date: 07 March 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-2672-CR,94-2672-CR
• Citation: 531 N.W.2d 408,192 Wis.2d 470
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Derrick L. RIDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 408

531 N.W.2d 408

192 Wis.2d 470

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Derrick L. RIDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-2672-CR.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs Feb. 20, 1995.

Opinion Released March 7, 1995.

Opinion Filed March 7, 1995.

For the defendant-appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of Steven D. Phillips, Asst. State Public Defender.

For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, Atty. Gen., and Stephen W. Kleinmaier, Asst. Atty. Gen.

Before CANE, P.J., LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.

MYSE, Judge.

Derrick Riddle appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, contrary to § 161.41, STATS. Riddle, a back-seat passenger in an automobile, was arrested after a law enforcement officer discovered cocaine in the trunk of the automobile.The officer arrested the driver of the automobile and the three passengers, including Riddle.Riddle subsequently admitted that the cocaine was his and was convicted of possession with intent to deliver.Riddle now contends that his admission was the fruit of an illegal arrest because the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him.Because we conclude that there was no probable cause for Riddle's arrest, the statement must be suppressed and the conviction reversed.

On August 24, 1993, State TrooperCharles Hotvedt stopped a vehicle traveling westbound on Interstate 94 after a computer check revealed that the vehicle's Illinois registration had expired.When Hotvedt arrived at the vehicle, he found four people inside: the driver, Demetrius Morrison; the registered owner, Delmar Delaney; and two back-seat passengers, Quincy Courts and Derrick Riddle.Hotvedt issued Delaney a warning for the expired registration.He also ran a license check on Morrison and discovered that his Illinois driver's license had been suspended.Hotvedt informed Morrison that he would have to post bond at state patrol headquarters and directed the passengers to follow him in Delaney's vehicle to headquarters.

After arriving at headquarters, Hotvedt discovered that Delaney and Morrison had told inconsistent stories concerning where they had been, where they were going and what their travel plans were.Hotvedt then advised Delaney that he was concerned about movements that Riddle made immediately after Hotvedt stopped the vehicle, asked Delaney whether there were any weapons in the vehicle and requested permission to search the vehicle.Delaney denied that there were any weapons in the automobile and granted Hotvedt permission to conduct the search.

Hotvedt subsequently prepared a "consent to search" form and advised Delaney that if he did not sign the form, the vehicle would not be searched.Delaney signed the form.Hotvedt proceeded to search the interior of the vehicle, where he found an air freshener, a beeper and duct tape holding down the carpet.At Hotvedt's request, Delaney unlocked the glove compartment and opened the trunk.Hotvedt found an empty plastic bag in the glove compartment.He then searched the trunk and found two small balls of clear plastic containing a substance that was later identified as cocaine.

Immediately after discovering the cocaine, Hotvedt placed all four occupants of the vehicle under arrest.Three special agents with the Department of Justice, Division of Narcotics Enforcement, were called in to assist in the investigation and interrogation of the four suspects.The suspects were read their Miranda ¹ rights and were initially interrogated individually.After approximately twenty minutes, however, a group interrogation was conducted.Each suspect was asked to repeat the story he gave during the individual interrogation in the presence of the other suspects.During this round of questioning, Riddle ultimately admitted that the cocaine was his and that he intended to sell it in Minneapolis.

Riddle moved the trial court to suppress the admission, arguing that there was no probable cause for his arrest.The trial court, however, concluded that there was probable cause and denied the motion.A jury trial was subsequently held, and Riddle was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, contrary to § 161.41, STATS. Riddle appeals.

Whether there was probable cause for Riddle's arrest involves the application of a constitutional standard to undisputed facts, which we review without deference to the trial court.SeeState v. Guzy, 139 Wis.2d 663, 671, 407 N.W.2d 548, 552(1987).Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionandart. I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, an arrest is illegal unless it is supported by probable cause.State v. Koch, 175 Wis.2d 684, 700, 499 N.W.2d 152, 161(1993)."Probable cause exists where the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable police officer to believe that the defendant probably committed a crime."Id. at 701, 499 N.W.2d at 161.

While the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge need not be sufficient to make the defendant's guilt more probable than not, the defendant's guilt must be more than a mere possibility for the arrest to be constitutional.State v. Paszek, 50 Wis.2d 619, 625, 184 N.W.2d 836, 839-40(1971).Further, in determining whether probable cause existed, we do not look to the officer's subjective beliefs, but apply an objective standard based upon the circumstances as they were at the time of the arrest.State v. Buchanan, 178 Wis.2d 441, 447 n. 2, 504 N.W.2d 400, 403 n. 2(Ct.App.1993).The State concedes that if Hotvedt did not have probable cause to arrest Riddle, his admission must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest.SeeTaylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2666-67, 73 L.Ed.2d 314(1982);Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 217, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2259, 60 L.Ed.2d 824(1979)(confession made after illegal arrest not admissible).Therefore, the only issue is whether Hotvedt had probable cause to arrest Riddle at the time he discovered the drugs in Delaney's vehicle.We conclude that he did not.

Riddle asserts, and we agree, that there are two conceivable theories that would support his arrest: (1)He possessed the cocaine, or (2)he was an accomplice to one who did.We shall address each of these theories in turn.

Riddle did not possess the cocaine at the time of the arrest.At the time Hotvedt effectuated the arrest, Riddle was seated in the backseat of the vehicle.As a passenger, Riddle had no relationship to the cocaine that was ultimately found in the locked trunk.Riddle was not in possession of the cocaine, and he did not control the area where the cocaine was concealed.There is no indication in the record that Hotvedt had reason to believe that Riddle had a key to the trunk of the automobile or that he ever had access to the interior of the trunk.Further, Riddle never engaged in any suspicious conduct,...