 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Werner6/5/2003
pplied when the suspect was ordered to leave his dwelling by coercive police conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Maez, 872 F.2d 1444, 1457 (10th Cir. 1989) (which cited United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1166 (6th Cir. 1984) in holding that this arrest outside a trailer constituted a constructive entry even though no physical entry had occurred). For purposes of this opinion, we shall assume, without deciding, that the arrest outside the dwelling involved a constructive entry in which the police ordered defendant to emerge from the building and then placed him under arrest.
A. Probable Cause and Exigent Circumstances
From the record in this case, we hold unequivocally that the West Warwick police had probable cause to arrest Werner for the shootings of Stoddard and Burton and the possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The contents of the vehicle verified that Werner had been an occupant and probably had driven the vehicle. These facts alone constituted ample probable cause to believe that Werner had driven the vehicle, had taken a shotgun from it, and had, with little or no provocation, shot two people after threatening McGonigle with the same gun. From the items in the vehicle, the police were led to Werner's sister at an address on 200 Lockwood Street. This was the address contained on magazine subscriptions relating to Werner. Werner's sister gave the police information which, with further investigation, would associate Werner with the dwelling at 14B Brookside Avenue. This entire investigation took no more than ten hours. The defendant argues that this was a planned arrest. It certainly bore no relationship to the circumstances disclosed in Payton. The arrest here bears a much closer relationship to that which occurred in State v. Gonsalves, 553 A.2d 1073 (R.I. 1989). In that case, we stated:
"Whether circumstances rise to the level of exigency is determined by referring to the facts known to the police at the time of the arrest. See United States v. Williams, 612 F.2d 735, 739 (3rd Cir. 1979). ' he police [must] have an objective, reasonable belief that a crisis can only be avoided by swift and immediate action.' Duquette v. Godbout, 471 A.2d at 1363 (citing State v. Benoit, 417 A.2d at 900). We find little merit to defendant's contention that the police had no reason to believe that Gonsalves was randomly violent or in possession of a firearm.
"On the facts of the case before us, police officers promptly responded to the report of a shooting. They received information from a credible eyewitness that defendant had shot his brother. These facts alone established a reasonable basis for investigating authorities to infer that defendant was capable of irrational and violent behavior. As a result of an ongoing investigation in the field, the police located Gonsalves at Anna Hall's apartment less than one hour after the shooting. We conclude that the police reasonably believed defendant to be 'armed and dangerous' and in a highly emotional state after shooting his brother." Gonsalves, 553 A.2d at 1075.
In the case at bar, defendant had engaged in irrational and violent conduct with little or no provocation. The police knew that he had been armed with a shotgun. No shotgun was found in the Mercury Monarch. Consequently, the police had every reason to believe that defendant was still armed and dangerous. They had every reason to believe that he was capable of violent and irrational conduct. As we pointed out in Gonsalves, " he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency." Gonsalves, 553 A.2d at 1075 (quoting State v. Jennings, 461 A.2d 361, 366 (R.I. 1983)). Und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|