# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Wood v. Idaho > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0519%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 1040 ## Text , Supreme Court af the United States’ — ul an 197 a ; 6 RANDOLPH prem! Woon, and “ARTHUR ROMUALD DESCHAMPS, III° _Petitioners, - a _vs. STA“E OF IDAHO * Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO — Seas SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE . - OF IDAHO | WAYNE iL. KweLL, ESQ. * KIDWELL, MCKEE, QUANE & HARWOOD - Sujte 414 Simplot Building — _ Boise, Idaho 83701 Attorneys for Petitioners ‘ . ‘e e “ & z 5 3 ' : ‘ 7 ’ . ‘ nl ¢ * ) . i ‘ Ee ao et, + ee eat - . ia . F ; , ' ° . * . f . : —— October 19, 1971, the Supreme Court: of Idaho enter ed its Order: “That the Remittitur in this ‘action is hereby. recal- led and that the Clerk ofthe District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of, Idaho, in and | for Washington County, . return’. the Remittitur dated September 27, 1971, to this’ Court, pending a _ Petition. to the United States eupreie Court for * Writ of Certiorari:’ . -”~ Jurisdiction is invoked in this cause pursuant to 28 USC 1257. QUEST IONS PRESENTED sia Does sufficient prdébable Cause for issuance of a search warrant and warrant for arrest exist wher e the pee 7k % i infor mation supplied the Magistr ate consists way of | _ the officer-affiant’s statement that he received an All... ~.: Bulletin. On page 25 of the Transcript of the Pre- liminary Hearing the following exchange took .place ' between counsel for defendants and Deputy Wadley: “Q. And if I understand your testimony, the reg- ‘son that you did hot arrest the defendants out on the highway and waited until you had conducted your search was that you didn’t feel that you had any prob- able cause to make the arrest w hen you stopped them on the highway. . . A. No. The reason I stopped them was just to check them out on this bulletin. ° MR. KEAST: Would: you answer that question specifically. A. The only cause | had 4 Was the bulletin. Q. In other words, you didn’t feel — at that time © you did not have probable cause. A. No, I didn’t have no reason to arrest them, no, sir.” As soon as Deputy Wadley and Mr. Douglas had the defendants lodged safely in the Sheriff's Office they contacted Sheriff Johnston. Sheriff Johnston was at home with Deputy Joe Wilson, and they both came ‘ immediately down to the-Sheriff’s Office. (P H Tr. p. 74). Upon his arrival at the Sheriff's office, Sheriff Johnston asked the defendants if they had been ad- vised of their rights (P H Tr. p. 76) and, before talk- ing with them, advised them of their rights. (P H Tr. p.76). The Sheriff asked the defendants if he could “ search their car: and when they refused (P H Tr. p. 77, L. 3- 7), he immediately left with one of the Depu- _ ties to obtain a Search Warrant and various other papers. He left the two defendants in his office with two regular deputies and Mr. Douglas (P./H Tr. p. 85). Sheriff Johnston -w vent immediately to the Prosecut- ing Attorney and requested that the Prosecuting | At- torney prepare the necessary papers to support a Search Warrant and a Warrant for Arrest. The Pro- secuting Attorney prepared, for the Sheriff’s signa- ture,. a Deposition of Facts in Support .ef- Search ~~~ Warrant and an Affidavit for Search Warrant. The only information or basis for requesting the prepara= tion of the Deposition and Affidavit was the All Points Bulletin. (P H Tr. p. 90,.L. 20-23; p. 91, L. 1-8; p. 94, L. 16-17; p. 110, L. 19-25; p. 111, L. 1-18). The Depo- sition ‘of Facts in Support of Search Warrant reads : as follows: “QU EST ION: What is your nameg,- address and occupation? A. James R. Johnston. I live at . Rewte 1, Weiser, - Idaho, and am the Sheriff of Washington County, Idaho. . e Q. What reason did you _om for the arrest of the above named defendants or either of them? A. We picked up an: All-Points Bulletin by police radio put out by Canyon County_Sheriff’s Office des- cribing an automobile-as a 1961 Mei ‘cury Station Wa- gon, metallic green in color, Montana license +4-7154 - and pulling an orange colored U-Haul trailer, 2-wheel, ~ Washington license = Z 39928, and advising that the occupants were believed to have marijuana in their — possession and the occupants of said automobile were. deser ibed as two male subjects. Q.- Where were these two men picked “ A. They were traveling noith on ‘U. 8S. Highway 95 approximately five miles south of, Weiser, Idaho, - and were stopped at 11:30 A.M. by Deputy Sheriff Mike Wadley, May 4, 1968, at which time the suspects— were brought to the Sheriff’soffice at Weiser, Wash- _ “ington. County, Idaho, and at which time they locked the automobile and refused to permit the deputy sher- iff to search said automobile.” s- James R. Johnston ¢ Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 4th day of May, 1968. s Don Henderson Probate Judge The Affidavit for Search Warrant ‘prepared for the “— signature of the Sheriff reads as follows: 7 “STATE OF IDAHO |: County of Washington: ss. James R. Johnston, being duly sworn, on oath de- poses and says that he is the hrs elected, qualified and acting Sheriff of Washjngton County, State of Idaho; that certain personal property, to-wit: Mari- juana, is now alleged to be i in the possession of said — - Arthur Romauld Deschamps, III and Randolph — Douglas Wood, situate in the automobile belonging to Randolph Douglas Wood, described as a 1961 co ee ; Mercury Station Wagon, metalic: green in ‘color, .. Montana license .+4-7154: and pulling an-erange colored U-Haul trailer, 2-wheel with Washington ‘license Z 39928, With ‘the intent thereof to use the same as a means of committing a public offense, to- wit: the offense of having .narcotics, to-wit: mari-— Juana, in their possession. , All of which is contrary to the {o0n, force and effect ~ of the statute in such a case 1:9 ic and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of Idaho. And this affiant prays a search war- rant issue and the above device be brought before a magistrate and disposed of according to law.” s James R. Johnston Subscribed and sworn before men this 4th day of May, 1968. . © e ~ s . 8 Don Henderson . ' Probate Judge ~ After obtaining the : papers from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff “contacted the Probate Judge, who was home since it was a Saturday, and told him he wanted him to issue a Search Warrant and a- ‘Warrant for Arrest. The Probate Judge indicated that all of his papers were at the Courthouse.and asked the Sheriff if he would take him to the Probate Court at . the Courthouse. The Sheriff took the Probate Judge to-the Probate Courtroom in the Courthouse and there, in the presence of the-Probate Judge, signed the Depo- sition of Facts in Support of Search Warrant and Affidavit for Search Warrant, set forth above, and re- a Ta quested that the Judge issue, at that time, a Search ‘Warrant and Warrant for Arrest. The Sheriff, in the _Preliminary Hearing, testified that Judge Henderson read the’ papers over and signed them@pithout corit- ment. (P H Tr. p. 95, L. 14-21; p. 99; L. 23-25: p. 100, . LL: 21-25; p. 101, L. 1-25; p. 102, L. 1-22).- When the'trial court heard arguments of counsel on . defendants’ Motion to Quash the Search Warrant, ‘Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest, and Motion to Suppress Evidence, Judge Henderson was placed under oath and examined by both the State and the defense. His testimony can be found on pp. 4-14 of the - Transcript of the Trial. Close examination of Judge ‘ Henderson's testimony will reveal that, while he says he had some discussion with the Sheriff, he relied strictly on the information given him by the Sheriff and contained in the Depositien and Affidavit. (Tr. p. 11, L. 9-25). Since the Sheriff testified that the sole basis for his obtaining the Search —— was the All Points Bulletin (PH Tr. p. 90, L: 20-23 ;/p. 91, L. 1-8; p. 94, L.'16-17; p. 110, ‘L. 19-25; p. 111, L..1-18), the All Points Bulletin then had to be the sole basis for Judge Henderson's decision to issue the Search War- rant and Warrant for Arrest. “- At the Preliminary Hearing, the Sheriff testified that Judge Henderson. signed the Warrant for Arrest "at the same time he signed the Search Warrant, and — left both documents with him. (P_H Tr. p. 109, L. 17- 25; p. 110, .L.°1-25). Judge Henderson testified that the Search Warrant was first- issued while he was in his office and later, from his home, after certain items were found as a rgsult of the search, he. issued the —ll— . _ Warrant of Arrest. (Tr. p. 7,'L. 13- 27). The wuitgloes ‘as to when the’ Wafrant . Arrest was issued is fur- ‘ther compounded by the fact. that Sheriff Johnston - at the Preliminary Hearing,- after repeated question- ing, consistently indicated that once the items were found which were believed to be marijuana, he im- - mediately served a Warrant of Arrest: (PH Tr. p. 79, L. 4-6; p. 109, L. 17-25; p. 110, L. 1-15; p. 170, L. 1- , 13). In any event, there ig no question from the testi- .mony taken, that Judge Henderson relied wholly upon Si the knowledge of the Sheriff for the issuance of the documents, and that the Sheriff’s knowledge was based entirély | upon the All Points Bulletin. Once the Sheriff had obtained the Search Warr ant, he took it back to the defendants, who were still being - held in the Sheriff’s Office, and presented it to Mr. Wood, the.driver of the car, and searched the car and trailer. He found a-can of substance he thought to: be _ marijuana and he thereupon arrested the defendants and continued the search of the car, eventually find- . ing additional substances, which, over objection, were admitted in evidence at the trial as, marijuana. "ARGUMENT By its opinion ae decision (Appendix B) the Idaho Supreme Court has effectively held that a search con- ducted at the stationhouse more tan four hours after the actual arrest is nevertheless lawful, w here a search warrant is issued. based upon testimony that 1) the affiant-officer received an APB describing an automo- bile with two occupants believed to be in possession of Re ee e marijuana, and 2) -that the affiant had “picked up, the two men. : Petitioners contend such a holding is contrary to applicable decisions of this court cited herein, partic- ularly Spinelli vs. United States, 273 U.S. 410, 21 L. » ed. 637, 89 S.Ct. 584. ae Obviously, the tardy stationhouse search cannot be ‘considered as “incident” to: the ‘warrantless arrest: and consequently, the question of whether the APB: was actually founded upon probable causé so as. to justify a warrantless arrest and incidental search be- - comes irrelevant. As a result, the search warrant and subsequent search must stand independently the test ‘of “probable cause”. | Unlike the factual situation presented in Frank Chambers vs. James F. Maroiey, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L. Ed.2d. 419, 90 S.Ct. 1975 (1970), this was not a-war-. rantless search which can be justified upon the same “probable cause” existing for the warrantless arrest. Thig court’s opinion in Chambers. does not purport to. answer the question hereih, namely the legality of a subsequent. search pursdant te warrant w here inade- quate and insufficient .s:rorn information is presented to the issuing Magistrate. . Cink The original informant w as completely “unknown, and unidentified” to the issuing Magistrate—Hender- son, as well as the Sheriff. The Affidavit for Search Warrant and Deposition of Facts in Support of Search Warrant, both submitted by the Sheriff (who Was not the actual. arresting officer), essentially convey ed to the Magistrate the information that: a ‘ee 1. A radio message had been. received alleging that a certain automobile’ contained marijuana, and 2. That the Sheriff had ‘ wicked up” two men travel-. .ing north in an automobile fitting the description given in the alos message. | | In Aguila US. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 12 Kd. ed. 728, 84 S. Ct. 1509, this Court stated: “In Nathanson v United States, 290 U:S. 41, 78 L.ed. 159, 54 S.Ct. 11, a warrant was issued upon the . sworn allegation that the affiant ‘has cause to suspect and does believe’ that. certain merchandise was ina. | specified: location. Id., at 44, 78 L.ed. at 160. The’ -.. Court, noting that the affidavit ‘went upon a’ mere affirmation of suspicion and belief without any state- — ment of adequate supporting facts, id. at. 46, 78 L.ed. at 161 (emphasis added), sinnounced the fol- . lowing i, a te e . ; “Under the Fourth Kontuitiieat: an officer may not properly issue a warrant to search .°. . unless he can find probable ‘cause therefor from facts or cir- ~scumstances presented to him under oath or affirma- - tion. Mere affirmance of: belief or ‘suspicion is not - enough.’ Id.,- at 47, 78 Lied. at 162. (Emphasis _ added. )”’ | | ' There are absolutely. no facts recited in the Sheriff's ° Affidavit upon which his belief’was. founded and mere. . belief or suspicion is not enough. In the case of Whit-. ley -vs.. Warden of Wyoming State. Penitentiary, — OR. Sgeiae ra 28 L. Ed.2d 306, 91 S. Ct. 1031 nih this Court held:as follows: | 14 hes oe | “The decisions of this ee concerning ~ Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements - before ‘a - warrant for either arrest or search can issue require ‘that the judicial officer issuing sucha warrant be supplied ‘with. sufficient infor mation to support an independent judgement that probable cause exists for the warrant. (citing cases) :,. That complaint consists of nothing more than the complaintant’ s con- clusion that the individuals named therein prepetrat- ed the offense deser ibed in. the complaint. The actual _ -basis for Sheriff Ogburn’ s conclusion was an inform- | er’s tip, but that fact, as well: as every other opera- -tive’ fact, is omitted from the complaint. Under the ‘cases just cited, that doeunient alone could not sup- port the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate.”’ In Spinelli vs. United States, supra, there is a dis- - ‘ cussion: of what information must be brougnt before a magistrate: “What is. missing in Nathanson and like cases is a ~ statement of the basis for the affiant’s believing the facts contained in the affidavit—the good ‘cause* which the officer in Nathanson said he had. If an cfficer swears ‘that there is gambling equipment at "a certain address, the possibilities are (1) that he has seen the equipment; (2) that he has observed or perceived facts from ‘which the: presence of the equipment may reasonably be inferred; and (3)~ . that he has obtained the information from someone else. If (1) is true, the affidavit is good. But in (2) _ the affidavit is insufficient unless the perceived facts are given, for it is the magistrate, not the officer, ae | who is to judge the existence of probable cause. (cit- ing cases) With respect to (3), where the officer's ‘information is hearsay, no warrant should issue absent good cause for erediting that heresay. Be- cause ‘an affidavit asserting, without more, the lo- ~ gation of gambling equipment ai a particular address does not clainr personal observation of any of the ‘facts by the officer, and because of the likelihood that _the information came from ea unidentified third party, affidavits of this type are unacceptable. (em- phasis added }. “Nejther should the warrant issue if the officer states that there is gambling equipment in a par- - ticular apartment and that his information comes from _an informant, named or unnamed, since the honesty of the informant and the basis for his re- port are unknown. Nor would the, missing elements ‘be completely supplied by the officer's oath that ‘the - informant has often furnished reliable information in the past. This attests to the honesty of the infor- mant, but Aguilar v Texas, supra, requires some- thing more—did the information.come from obser- vation, or did the informant in turn receive it from ~ another? Absext additional facts for believing the — -informant’s report, his assertion stands no better than the oath of the officer to the same effect. Indeed, if the affidavit of an officer, known hy the magistrate to be honest and experienced, stating that gambling equipment is located in a certain building is unac- ceptable, it would bé quixotic if a similar statement from dan honest informant. were found to furnish : probable cause.‘A strong argument can be made that te both should be acceptable under the Fourth Amend- F _ _ ment, but under our cases neither i is. The past relia-. _ bility of the informant can no more furnish probable cause for believing his current report than can pre- _vious experience with the officer himself, “If the affidavit rests on hearsay—an informant’s report—what is necessary under Aguilar is one of - two things: the informant must declare either (1) that he has himself seen or perceived the fact or facts asserted: or (2) that his information is hearsay, but there is good reason foy believing it—perhaps one of the usual grounds for crediting hearsay information. The first presents few problems: since the report, although hearsay, purports to be firsthand observa- tion, remaining doubt centers on the honesty of the informant, and that worry is dissipated by the of- ficer’s prev ious experience wath the informant. The ’ other basis for aecepting the informant’s report is . complicated. But if, for example, the inform- er’s hearsay comes from one of the actors in the crime Wy the nature of admission against interest, the affidavit giving this information should be held sufficient.” : s Contrary tv the implication of the Idaho Court, Petitioners contend the Whitely case does not hold that an. APB is ipso*facto sufficient probable cause before a Magistrate: , “We do not.of course question that the Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength of the- radio bulletin. Certainly police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are 7 i entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to. ; _ support.an independent: judicial assessment of prob- able cause. Where, however, the contrary turns*out * to be true, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be in- sulated’ from challenge by the decision of the insti- - gating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest.” In this case, no source information of any type was viigred to the magistrate who issued the Warrants by the officer requesting aid in the all points bulletin. The All Points Bulletin was issued without any information. having been given to a magistrate. The issuing magis- trate did not receive any information concerning this: purported crime until after the All Points Bulletin was issued and arrest had beers made. In this case, obvi- ously, the officers eequesting the aid had not yiven suf- ficient. assessment of probable cause prior to the issuance of the All Points Bulletin. The only judicial assessment of ‘probable cause came after the issuance of the All Points Bulletin. _ ° _ We would respectfully submit that the Idaho oo is cision in this matter is contrary to the-Spinclli case and constitutes a misinterpretation ‘of the Whiteley - ‘\ holding of this court and should therefore be reviewed. . ‘WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for issuance of a- . Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State © of Idaho. eat” Ue DATED ‘this 20th day of December, 1971. Respectfully submitted ™ es KIDWELL, McKEE, QUANE & HARWOOD By . ~ Wayne L. Kidwell, Of the Firm Suite 414 Simplot Building Boise, Idaho 83701 Attorneys for Petitioners: I herein certify that on the _._ __ day of Decem- ber, 1971, I served three true and ‘correct copies of the foregoing Petition for.Writ of Certiorari by mail, post- — age prepaid, on the Attorney General of the State of Idaho and the Prosecuting Attorney of Washington County, State of Idaho. a Wayne L. Kidwell Se " APPENDIX: A United States Constitution, Amendment Four: - “The right 6f the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause sup- ported by oath or affirmation and particularly de- _ seribing the place’ to be searched and persons or things to be seized.” - i eee United States Constitution, Amendment Fourteen: “Section . (CITIZENSHIP DUE PROCESS OF LAW — EQUAL PROTECTION.) — AIl persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject . to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United © States and-of the state wherein they reside. No state. shall make or enforce any law which shall! abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United - ' States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, - liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to.any person within its jurisdiction the équal protection of the laws.” _ . United States Statute, 28 USC 1257: . “STATE COURTS” APPEAL; CERTIORARI. * Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could: be -had, . may be reviewed by the.Supreme Court as follows: : (1) By appeal, where is drawn in question the val- idity of a treaty or statute of the United States and the decision is against its validity. 7 iA AM : (2) By appeal, where is drawn in question the val- ‘idity of a statute of any state on the grounds of this be- ing trepugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its -validity. (3) By writ of certiorari, where the validity of. a - treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in ques- tion @g where the validity of a State statute is drawn... in question on the grounds of its being repugnant to the \ Constitution, treaties or laws of the United ‘States, or ’ where any title, right, privilege or immunity is speci- ally set up or’clatmed under the Constitution, tyeaties or statutes of, or commission held or authority exer- cised under, the United States.” | 2 APPENDIX Bo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO No. 10849 . STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff- wins eaten ~. “ARTHUR ROMUALD DESCHAMPS, III and. RANDOLPH DOUGL AS WOOD, Defendants-Appellants. . Boise, May. Term, 1971 ’ Filed, July 30, 197} | R. H. Yoting, Clerk, ia Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Washington County. ~The Honorable Edward J. Lodge, District: Judge. Appealed from judgment ‘of conviction of possession - of marijuana, affirmed. Wayne L. Kidwell and Walter H. Bithell, Boiee,: for. . ~ appellant Arthur Romuald Deschamps, III; and “Ryan & Sweet, Weiser, and Anthony F. Keast, Mis- soula, Montana, for appellant Randolph Douglas ~ Wood. WwW. Anthony Park Aeeesy General, Martin R. Ward, Deputy Attorney General, and Charles P. - Brumback, Assistant Attorney General; State of Idaho, Boise, and Frank H. Joseph, Prosecuting — Attorney for Washington County, Weiser, for re- .- - - gpondent. . 7 SPEAR, J. ag! ee Bee tela eS 13 - 4 e ~ On May 4, 1968, the sheriff's office in Washington County received.an all points bulleffh (APB) which _ ‘provided the license number and description of a ve- hicle suspected of transporting marijuana and other narcotics. Having been apprised of the \APB, Deputy Wadley went on patrol accompanied by Ronald Doug- ~ las. The deputy, observed the suspect vehicle and stopped it at approximately 11:30 a.m. Appellants were the occupants of this automobile. Deputy Wadley advised them that they were suspected of. possessing marijuana, read them their rights, and frisked them. The deputy then requested appellants’ permission to search the atitomobile which they_re-. fused. Wadley informed them that they were being. detained. — me Appellants were then taken to the sheriff's. office, with Douglas driving appellants’ vehicle. After Deputy ‘Wadley and appellants. arrived at the sheriff’s office? ‘the sheriff requested the prosecuting attorney to pre-*: -pare the necessary paper's to support the issuance of a. search warrant and a warrant of arrest. These papers were presented to the probate judge who issued a search warrant and, later, a warrant of arrest. Appellants assert that the information eon-. tained in the unsupported APB was the-only evidence presented to the probate judge to establish probable _cause, and that it was insufficient primarily because it ° was based’on. hearsay. The, State, however, contends — ‘that the information initiating the. APB was supplied by a hitch-hiker given a ride by appellant, and‘this was also divulged to the probate judge. 2B - —_— j++ At trial, appellants asserted the illegality of the ar- ‘rest and search, but the district court denied various motions based upon, these objections, Upon a jury trial appellants were convicted of possession of mar ijuana. Judgment of conviction Was entered on the verdict and each was sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed five years in the Idaho State Penitentiary. . eee t On appeal,. aside Rui continue these objections through assignments of error, all on the basis that’ the APB received by the* Washington County sheriff's office does ngt provide ‘probable cause for their arrest or the issuaifée of a search, warrant. It is our conclu- sion that an official police communication does provide probable cause for either purpose so long as the com- munication itself is based upon sufficient. Entormatzon to constitute’ probable cause. ! Respondent ia several recent cases in Which courts’ have found that a police Communication will satisfy the constitutional probable cause requirement if it was. issued with probable cause: These cases are: United States v. Avers, 426 F.2d 524-(2d Cir. L970); Coleman v. United States, - 420 F2d 616 (D.C? Cir, 1969); Ojeda Superior Court, In. and For County of Monterey, 91 Cai Rep. 145, 12 Cal. App. 3d 909 (1970). In the case _at bar the informationwhich precipitated the is ssuance of the APB was supplied by a known and identified in- formant who had personally ‘seen the marijuana in the 7 possession of the appellants. This provided ‘a valid basis to issue the APB-and Ostablished probable cause: *— for the subsequent arrest and ° neneree of the search warrant. : a 3B \ esicaie cite Whiteley v. Warden, Wve oming State _ Penitentiary, +—U. 8. -, 91 §. Ct. 1031, .28 L. Ed.-2d : 306 (1971), as supporting their contention — that an APB cannot supply. pr obable cause for a war-— rantless arrest unless the arresting officer knows the facts causing its jssuanee. We cannot agree that Whit- ley can be so interpreted. That case concer ned a situfa- tion where the Court found the infor mation supporting the communication had been supplied by an undis- closed infor mant, that it was inadequate and that the ensuing arrest on the strength of such communication ~ was without probable cause. However the ioe also : stated : . “We do not of. course » question that the Lari amie | police Were entitled to act on the strength of the radio bulletin. Certainly police officer's called upon to’ aide other officers in executing arrest warrants / aye entitled’ to assume that 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: illeg ‘al arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by. the decision of the in- , esaeg officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest.” — paces S: at ——— Thereforé, the United States Supreme Court has not disturbed those decisions which hold that there is pro- bable cause for a w ai'rantless arrest on’the basis of an_ official policecommunication supported by information itself reliable enough ‘to supply probable cause. Fur- | thermore the conclusion to be reached from the above “4B \ ee. “e quoted language is that the Court has specifically _ sanctioned such procedure. eae i Since the APB provided probable cause for the war- - rantless arrest, we find:that there was ‘also probable | cause for the issuance by. the probate judge of the search wayrant and subsequent. warrant of arrest. At the pretrial conference Pi ‘obate Judge Henderson tes- tified: a eo ; ~-Q. Well, I will withdraw that quéstion. Will you \ tell the Court,.if -you will, the’ whole extent of the conversation that the sheriff revealed to you as to any facts prior that he revealed to you concer ning this thing in the all points es any information he g gave you? . - “A. The ‘position - of the mar ijuana Was men- tioned and that the hitchhiker had told whoever had the -all points bulletin put out, had told those people that there was marijuana in possession and that the “hitehhiker himself had a marijuana With him and was possibly in his shirt pocket, if I remember cor- rectly, and he had a pill i in bis shoe. Those two things struck me as odd.” Not only did the probate judge have the information in the APB befove him, which, we feel would have been . sufficient, but he w as also informed .of the spurce of the communiéation. : Judgment of the distri ict court affir med. , MeQUADE, Cia. McF ADDEN, DONALDSON and SHEPARD, JJ., coneur, | 9 ‘ e 5B APPENDIX C. _ In the Supreme Courf of the State of-Idaho ~ - STATE OF IDAHO he alee ei i ec. ARTHUR ROMUALD DESCHAMPS, Hl, and RANDOLPH DOUGLAS, WOOD, . Defendants-Appellants. Justice Spear announced the decision in- this cause July 30, 1971, and on denial of Petition for Rehear- ing, September 27, 1971, te the effect that the judg- ment of the District Court of the Third Judicial ‘Dis- trict of.the State of Idaho, Washington County, is af- _ firmed. . ‘ IT 8 NOW THEREFORE SO ORDERED: : _ 1, R. EB. Young; Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State © aho, do hereby certify that the above is a _- > aed and correct: eopiy of the judgment entered in thé “Above entitled cause September 27, 1971, and now of — - yecord in my office. . : WITNESS My: hand: “and the seal of this Court, . ‘September 27, 1971. R. H. YOUNG, Clerk - By Ruth A: Williams, Deputy --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0519%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.