Page 23 - TPA Journal January - February 2018

knowledge of the evidence that gave rise to the going to pay for the items she had taken.
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, so long as
he is acting at the request of those who have the We conclude that the officer had probable cause to
necessary information. In other words, the arrest.
collective knowledge theory applies so long as
there is some degree of communication between Appellee was indicted for possession of
the acting officer and the officer who has methamphetamine. The drugs were seized from
knowledge of the necessary facts. her purse at a Dollar General store during a theft
investigation. Appellee filed a motion to suppress
Here, Zuniga does not deny that officers could the drugs, and the police report of the incident was
rely on the collective knowledge doctrine to admitted at the suppression hearing. (This report
transfer reasonable suspicion between each other. was the only evidence because the arresting
Instead, he falls back on his principal argument officer was unavailable to testify due to an injury,
that the officers failed to establish any reasonable and the trial court was unwilling to grant a
suspicion that could be transferred. As we continuance. The trial court admitted the report
discussed above, we do not agree. And although over appellees objection.)
Officer Pruits testimony shows that he only
effected the stop at Sergeant Egger s instruction, According to the police report, a Dollar General
his lack of personalized suspicion is immaterial . store employee reported that a customer in the
. . because under the collective knowledge store was concealing store merchandise in her
doctrine, [Officer Pruit] did not need to form [his] purse and jacket. Upon arriving at the store, the
own suspicion. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d at 760 responding police officer met with the employee
n.6. The suspicion transferred by the law who made the report. The employee told the
enforcement agents who observed Zunigas traffic officer that the customer in question was in the
violation suffices. Accordingly, the district courts northeast corner of the store, and she described the
denial of Zunigas motion to suppress was not in customer as a white female with blond hair
error. wearing blue jeans and a light blue shirt. The
officer went to that part of the store and
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and encountered appellee, who met the employees
REMANDED for resentencing. description exactly.

U.S. v. Zuniga, No. 14-11304, 5 th Cir., June. 14, The officer informed appellee that she had been
2017. seen concealing items in her purse. Appellee
responded that she had put items in her purse, but
she was not done shopping, and she was going to
pay for the items before she left. The officer
PROBABLE CAUSE – SHOPLIFTING noticed that appellee had a shopping cart and that
ARREST there were items from the store in the cart that
were not in her purse.2 The purse was in the child
We consider whether a police officer had probable seat of the shopping cart and was covered by a
cause to arrest a customer for theft from a store blue jacket.
(for concealing items in her purse) when she had
not yet exited the store and when she claimed, The officer picked up the blue jacket and
after being confronted by the officer, that she was discovered that the purse was zipped up and full of

Jan./Feb. 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 19