United States v. Dorsey - 418 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005)

Rule:

An arrest is constitutionally valid if the arresting officers had probable cause to make the arrest. Officers have probable cause to make an arrest when at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense.

Facts:

Signs warned that persons on a high school's property without authorization would be treated as trespassers. An officer warned defendant, who was driving a car in the school parking lot, that since he had no legitimate business there, he was trespassing and would be arrested if he returned. A detective told police that, on the same day, she had seen a car and driver, matching the description of defendant and his car, driving recklessly in the parking lot. Defendant returned to the school the next day; when police pulled his car over, an officer noticed a strong marijuana smell; a search of the car produced money, cocaine base rocks, and a handgun. Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm during and in relation to and in furtherance of a federal drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm in a school zone. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence derived from his arrest but the district court found that the arrest was supported by probable cause, that the initial search was incident to a lawful arrest, and that the second search was either a lawful inventory search or saved by the inevitable discovery doctrine. Defendant pled guilty to the indictment, preserving his right to appeal. Defendant was sentenced to a total of ninety-eight months imprisonment. The present appeal followed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the defendant’s arrest valid and lawful? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for trespass and that the search of his car was thus a lawful search incident to arrest. Amended § 922(q), unlike its predecessor, did not violate the Commerce Clause because it required that a defendant's possession of a firearm in a school zone have a concrete tie to interstate commerce. But remand was required to determine whether the sentence would have been different under advisory, rather than mandatory, federal sentencing guidelines.