{¶ 2} Appellant wаs charged with four felony counts after it was alleged that she engaged in a drug transaction with an informant in the presence of law enforcement officials. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied by the trial court. She pled no contest to two drug possession charges, was found guilty by the trial court, and sentеnced accordingly. On appeal, appellant argues in her single assignment of error that the trial court *2 erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence.
{¶ 3} When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, a reviewing court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Guysinger
(1993),
{¶ 4} A motion to suppress has been defined as a device used to eliminate from a criminal trial evidence that has been secured illegally, generally in violation of thе
{¶ 5} Appellant argues that her motion to suppress should have been granted because law enforcement, who had no warrant, had insufficient grounds to approach and detain her and no probable cause to arrest her.
{¶ 6} Arresting оfficers must possess probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a felony when making a warrantless arrest.State v. Kerby, Clark App. No. 03-CA-55,
{¶ 7} An officer with the Clinton County Sheriff's Office was the only witness to testify *3 at the motion to suppress hearing in the case at bar. The officer told the trial court that he and other officers executed a search warrant at a man's house and found drugs there. The man ("informant") told police that appellant was the source for those drugs аnd offered to buy additional drugs from this source. The officer overheard a subsequent telephone conversation between the informant and appellant. The conversation involved an arrangement to purchase crack cocaine, the cost for the drugs, and directions to the informant's house. The informant was reportedly searched and given $300 in currency after the serial numbers for the currency were recorded.
{¶ 8} The officer testified that he observed appellant driving the vehiсle that arrived at the informant's residence, saw appellant motion the informant to approach the driver's window, and observed the informant at the window with appellant. He also told the trial court that another law enforcement official, situated with a better view of the transaction, signaled the testifying officer and other mеmbers of the "takedown unit" that the transaction was complete and an arrest could be made.
{¶ 9} The officer testified that appellant was stopped, arrested, and subsequently patted down by a female deputy. Located on appellant was a large amount of currency, including the $300 used for the transaction, which the оfficer identified by the prerecorded serial numbers. The officer indicated that police had secured the drugs obtained from the transaction between appellant and the informant. No other drugs were initially found on appellant.
{¶ 10} Appellant was placed in a police cruiser to be transported to the sheriff's office. The officer testified that the informant told police that appellant may have additional drugs on her. After she was removed from the police cruiser, drugs were found on the back seat of the vehicle.
{¶ 11} Appellant argues that the testifying officer did not observe critical portions of the *4 Clinton CA2006-11-042 drug transaction, and therefore, sinсe he was the only police official to testify at the motion to suppress, there was no showing of probable cause to stop and arrest her.1
{¶ 12} Upon review of the record, we conclude that law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest appellant before they stopped her, based upon the observations of the testifying officer and the information provided by the second officer who witnessed the drug transaction. See State v. Henderson (1990),
{¶ 13} The officer testified that he listened to the informant and appellant arrange a drug purchase, saw appellant drive up to the agreed meeting place, and оbserved appellant direct the informant to her vehicle window. The other officer notified the testifying officer to arrest appellant after he observed the completed transaction.
{¶ 14} As long as the law enforcement authorities as a whole complied with the constitutional requirements and possess facts suppоrting probable cause, the arrest will be valid even though the arresting officer alone did not possess those facts. Henderson at 57.
{¶ 15} The determination of probable cause depends upon the information relayed to police and whether they could reasonably have relied upon it, based upon what they knew at the time. See State v.Kerby,
{¶ 16} Finally, appellant argues under this assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence beсause the "facts were insufficient to conclude" that she possessed the drugs found in the rear seat of the police cruiser. Appellant offers the testimony of thе sheriff's officer who acknowledged that the cruiser was not searched to ensure it was without contraband before appellant was placed in the vehicle.
{¶ 17} As we previously noted, a motion to suppress raises constitutional challenges to eliminate evidence secured illegally in violation of the Constitution. We have already determined that police had probable cause to stop and arrest appellant.
{¶ 18} Appellant does not otherwise allege that the drugs fоund in the back seat of the police cruiser were obtained illegally in violation of her constitutional rights. Appellant argues that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to connect those drugs to her. Since appellant did not allege any pertinent basis for suppression of this evidence, the trial court did not err in its decision on the motion to suppress. See State v. Bishop, Clark App. No. 2003-CA-37,
{¶ 19} Appellаnt's motion to suppress evidence is not well-taken. The trial court did not err in denying her motion to suppress. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 20} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.