Thе case at bar is presented upon a stipulated statement of facts to answer a certified question of law. The question of law concerns the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1403(5), which in substance, allows an officer to make an arrest without warrant for certаin misdemeanors which are not committed in his presence.
The stipulated statement of facts is as follows: On March 11, 1968, at approximately 12:30 A.M., Officer M. C. Davis of the Phoenix Police Department responded to an accident call at Third Street and McDоwell Road in Phoenix, Arizona. Upon his arrival at the accident scene, Officer Davis ascertained who was driving each of *20 the two vehicles involved, which was previously unknown to him. He observed the physical evidence at the scene, determined how the accident occurred, and observed petitioner defendant, Erickson, (whom he had been informed was the driver of one of the vehicles involved).
Watching Erickson, Officer Davis observed the following:
1. That Erickson had a strong odor of intoxicating liquor on his breath and a flushed complexion, his clothes were disarrayed, his eyes were watery and bloodshot.
2. That Erickson’s attitude towards the officer and towards what was happening variеd. His attitude went from stuporous to cooperative, from cooperative to stubborn, from stubborn to indifferent, and from indifferent tо rebellious.
3. That during this entire time, the defendant’s speech was slurred and confused, and his choice of words was poor, his balanсe was poor with constant swaying and occasional falling.
Based upon Officer Davis’ investigation and observations at the sсene, the defendant was placed under arrest pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1403(5), for the offense of failure to control his vehicle so as to avoid a collision, (A.R.S. § 28-701, subsec. A) and driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (A.R.S. § 28-692, subsec. A). After having been advised оf his constitutional rights, the defendant refused to answer the questions asked by Officer Davis, saying: “All that I say is that I ran into that guy, it is my fault.” The above is the sum total of the agreed statement of facts.
A.R.S. § 13-1403, in pertinent part states that
“A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
* *5fc * * *
“(5) When at the scene of a traffic accident, based upon personal invеstigation, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated any section of Title 28'. ‡ * ‡ »
The question certified to this Court is:
“Can the State of Arizona constitutionally authorize the arrest of a person found at the scene of an automobile accident when the arresting officer has, based upon his own investigation, probable cause to believe that the person so arrested has violated any section of Title 28, of the Arizona Revised Statutes?”
State v. Nixon,
For rеasons that will follow, we are convinced that the defendant’s arrest pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1403(5) was not unconstitutional, nor did it violate federаl or state due process requirements.
The power of arrest without warrant has been extended to include some misdemeanors not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. Singleton v. United States,
It has also been stated, in United States v. Grosso,
The defendant cites the case of Ex Parte Rhodes,
We do not believe that Rhodes supports defendant’s position. There are important distinctions between thаt case and the case at bar. The Alabama statute did not require a determination of probable cause. The court there held that the Alabama constitution prohibited an arrest without warrant upon a mere verbal charge of trespass by а citizen.
In the case at bar, an arrest under A.R. S. § 13-1403(5) requires that the arresting officer, based upon his own knowledge, have probablе cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated a provision of Title 28. The ordinance construed in Rhodes did not require that probable cause exist before an arrest. The Arizona statute in question does require that probаble cause exist before an arrest.
We specifically limit our holding to the question presented for certification. Therе may be some misdemeanors which would not justify’such an arrest. However we are not called upon- to make this distinction here. -Suffice it to say here that the seriousness of the offenses charged in the case at bar more than justifies the arrest made. Based upon the facts of the present case we hold that the arrest was constitutional, and answer the certified question in the affirmative.