Brown v. StateBrown v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Benham
Fоllowing his arrest at Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport, appellant was found guilty in a bench trial of trafficking in cоcaine. His sole enumerated error on appeal stems from the denial of his motion to suppress. Aрpellant contends that the evidence obtained by a search of his person, which netted 427 grams of purе cocaine, was the fruit of an illegal arrest.
The arresting officer testified that she was an Atlanta poliсe officer temporarily assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration *39 Task Force at the airport. An airline employee in Atlanta informed the officer telephonically that two men with round-trip tickets from Little Rock to Miami and with only a small tote bag between them, had approached the Miami departure gate togеther. The employee noted that the tickets had been purchased with cash and that the two men, named Hill аnd Brown, were scheduled to complete their round-trip flight that evening. The officer investigated and found that the mеn had made their reservations together and had given a Little Rock telephone number as a contact number. When the officer called the Little Rock number, the woman who answered was “unfamiliar with a Mr. Hill,” but when asked about people named Hill and Brown traveling to Miami, mentioned a man named Hill and a woman named Brown.
Later thаt evening, accompanied by two task force agents to whom she imparted all the information she had gathered, the officer observed the two men previously described to her deplane together from a flight from Miami and ask for the location of the departing flight to Little Rock. The officer approached thе duo and identified herself to appellant, who appeared startled but agreed to stop and talk with her. However, Hill, his companion, continued walking down the concourse. When one of the task force agеnts approached Hill, he shoved the agent and ran down the concourse. The officer with appellant noticed that Hill, while running, was “sticking his hand down his pants like he was trying to get something out of his pants.” Based on her previous experience that many drug couriers conceal contraband in the crotch area of their bоdies, the officer believed that appellant’s fleeing companion was trying to remove contraband from his pants. The officer locked her arm through appellant’s arm and told him not to go anywhere. While they witnessed the chase of appellant’s companion, appellant volunteered to the officеr that he did not know who the fleeing man was, a comment the officer categorized as “unusual,” since she knew they had made their reservations together and had traveled together from Little Rock to Miami to Atlanta, and she had seen them deplane together and converse with each other. The officer then escorted appellant to a private airline office, where she examined his ticket and asked for identification. The other agents then escorted the captured Hill into the room, where they noticed a bulge in his pants. A large wrapped package of suspected cocaine was removed from Hill’s groin areа, and appellant was informed he was under arrest. Appellant consented to a search of his pеrson and the tote bag, and his pants were unzipped when one of the agents noticed a bulge. A package, later determined to be cocaine, was removed from appellant’s groin area.
Appеllant contends he was arrested without probable cause when the officer locked her arm through his and told him not to go any *40 where. “A ‘warrantless arrest’ is constitutionally valid if, at the moment the arrest is made, the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information werе sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense. [Cits.]” Callaway v. State, 257 Ga. 12 (2) (354 SE2d 118) (1987). Assuming, without deciding, that appellant was arrested when the policewoman locked her arm with his, we concludе that her action was supported by probable cause. At the moment the arrest was made, assuming again thаt the officer’s action constituted an arrest, the officer knew that appellant and Hill had exhibited several characteristics which, in her experience, were usually exhibited by drug couriers; appellant and Hill wеre traveling together; Hill had assaulted a task force agent who asked to speak with him; and Hill had fled from the tаsk force agents while attempting to remove something from inside his pants, a place the officer knew wаs often used by drug couriers to conceal contraband. Exhibition of drug courier characteristics, coupled with flight, constituted probable cause to arrest Hill. Brown v. State, 188 Ga. App. 417, 419 (373 SE2d 99) (1988); Banks v. State, 187 Ga. App. 280 (1) (370 SE2d 38) (1988). Appellant’s exhibition of drug courier characteristiсs, the officer’s knowledge that appellant and Hill had made their reservations together and were travеling together, when coupled with the flight of appellant’s companion and his attempt to rid himself of something in his рants, constituted probable cause to arrest appellant as a party to the crime. Thus, even if it is assumed appellant was arrested when the officer locked her arm in his, the arrest was supported by probable cause.
Judgment affirmed.
McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.