State v. SterlingState v. Sterling
The defendant, Ricky B. Sterling, was charged by bill of information with distribution of pentazocine in violation of
Defendant now appeals, urging as his sole аssignment of error the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence. He alleges that there was no probable cause to support his detention and search by police officers.
The state submitted the testimony of three witnesses to support a finding of probable causе. Only one witness, Officer Stanley Bihm of the Baton Rouge City Police, actually testified at the hearing on the motion. However, the transcript of the prеliminary examination was submitted on the motion as an offering of the testimony of Ms. Donna Parker and Officer Mack Gibson of the Baton Rouge City Police. Thе testimony of the three witnesses was consistent and established the following circumstances surrounding the search.
Officer Gibson received a telephone call about drug dealing in the area of 38th and Cain Streets in Baton Rouge and set up a surveillance of the area on the evening of Aрril 14, 1983. Officer Gibson was positioned in a parked car about one-half block south of Cain Street. Officer Bihm was in another unit in the vicinity.
At about 6:00 p.m., Officer Gibsоn observed two black females walk past his vehicle. One of the females, Ms. Parker, reached into her pocket, brought out some money, аnd counted it. The two continued to walk toward Cain Street and stopped at the intersection of 38th and Cain, near a gasoline station. Defendаnt walked up to them. Officer Gibson observed Ms. Parker hand defendant the money, and defendant then hand something to her. Officer Gibson was not previously aсquainted with either party to the transaction and could not see what defendant gave Ms. Parker.
Officer Gibson advised Officer Bihm (presumably by radio) that “а drug deal was going down....” Officer Bihm arrived at the scene to detain Ms. Parker, while Officer Gibson apprehended defendant at the intersection of 39th аnd Cain Streets.
Ms. Parker admitted that she had purchased drugs from defendant, as observed by Officer Gibson. Money and other drugs were later found on defendant‘s person.
Defendant‘s sole contention on appeal is that probable cause was lacking for the arrest, rendering the subsequent search of his person illegal.
The state bears the burden of proving the admissibility of evidence seized during a search without a warrant.
A peace officer may lawfully аrrest a person without a warrant when he has reasonable (probable) cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense.
All of the information in the possession of police is to be considered in the determination of whether or not probable cause existed for the arrest. State v. Buckley,
The nature of the area of suspected criminal activity is relevant to a determination of probable cause. See State v. Buckley, supra. The reputation of an area is an articulable faсt upon which a police officer may legitimately rely. State v. Buckley, supra. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). Such so-called high crime areas are places in which the character of the area gives color to conduct which might not otherwise arouse the suspicion of an officer. State v. Buckley, supra.
Defendant specifically relies upon State v. Herbert, 351 So.2d 434 (La.1977), and State v. Thomas, 349 So.2d 270 (La.1977), as being factually similar to the case sub judice and as supporting his argument that probаble cause did not exist. In Herbert, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that probable cause was not established on the basis of observation of the passing of an object between admitted narcotics addicts followed by the passing of an object to a woman who fled at the sight of police. In Thomas, the Louisiana Supreme Court again found that probable cause did not exist based upon the observation of defendant carrying an object wrapped in tinfoil, quickening his pace upon seeing plain clothes officers, and passing the object to a woman in a car, who wedgеd it behind the car‘s door handle.
Both cases are readily distinguishable from the case sub judice, in which the transfer of the object was accompanied by the transfer of money. In Herbert and Thomas, the police merely obsеrved the transfer of objects. Herein, the officer observed the exchange of an object for cash money, elevating the occurrence to that of a monetary transaction, consistent with the theory of a “drug deal.”
Moreover, the area in which the cash transaction occurred is well-known for drug traffic. While the witnesses herein did not testify as to the notoriety of the area, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that the intersection of 38th and Cain Streets in Baton Rouge is a notorious drug-trafficking area, referred to by local residents as “the shooting gallery.” See State v. Pautard, 470 So.2d 596 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). We feel cоmpelled to take judicial notice of the conditions prevailing at that location. See
Officer Gibson observed a monetary transaction bеtween a man and woman, in which the woman gave cash money to the man and was handed an unidentified object in return. The transaction took place at 6 o‘clock in the evening at a public intersection which is highly notorious for illegal drug-trafficking. These particular facts provided Officеr Gibson with articulable knowledge sufficient to reasonably suspect defendant of criminal activity, and, therefore, probable cause existеd for the arrest and subsequent search of defendant incident thereto. The trial court did not err in denying defendant‘s motion to suppress.
For the above reasons, defendant‘s contention is without merit, and the judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.