 |
Randy Goodis, P.A. © 2008 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Law
Offices of
Randy Goodis, P.A. |
|
888-DUI-8DUI
- Toll Free
305-389-1833 - 24 hours |
|
|
|
 |
 |
The Fellow Officer
Rule and It's Implications in DUI Cases - continued
The "Fellow Officer" Rule
In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that observations of
fellow officers of the government engaged in a common
investigation are plainly a reliable basis for a warrant
applied for by one of their number. "United States
v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85S. Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d
684 (1965). Six years later, the court reaffirmed the
notion that police officers could rely on other officers'
information as a basis to establish probable cause and
even could act entirely on information possessed by other
officers, but cautioned that the arrest ultimately was
as good only as the underlying information. That is, even
though the arresting officer did not personally possess
facts sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest
was not invalid so long as he was acting in concert with
or at the direction of a fellow officer who did have such
facts:
We do not, of course, question the
Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength
of the radio bulletin. Certainly, the police officers
called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest
warrants are entitled to assume the officers requesting
aid offered the magistrate the information requisite
to support an independent judicial assessment of
probable cause. Where, however, the contrary turns
out to be true, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot
be insulated from challenge by the decision of the
investigating officer to rely on fellow officers
to make the arrest.
|
|
| Whitley v. Warden of Wyoming Penitentiary,
401 U.S. 560. 568, 91S. Ct. 1031_, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971).
See, e.g. State v. Sams, 676 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.
5th DCA 1996) (where DUI blood alcohol test results were
challenged, reversing trial court order that erroneously
held that arresting officer had to possess the facts demonstrating
probable cause; it was sufficient that supervisor who
initiated blood draw order had probable cause); Polk
v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 5th DCA
1990) (It is sufficient if an officer initiating the chain
of communication receives information from an official
source of eyewitness who, it seems reasonable to believe,
is telling the truth."). |
|
  |
|
|
|
|
