Page 54 - TPA Journal July August 2018
P. 54
“a ‘fair probability’ of finding inculpatory because, inter alia, Sibron’s observed behavior
evidence at the location being searched.” A did not give rise to probable cause to conduct
reviewing court should measure this an arrest for a drug offense.
“probabilit[y]” by “the factual and practical
considerations of everyday life on which The court emphasized that, although
reasonable and prudent men, not legal Sibron had affiliated with known addicts,
technicians, act.” And it must take into “[t]he inference that persons who talk to
account “the totality of the circumstances” narcotics addicts are engaged in the criminal
known to the officer, eschewing a “divide-and- traffic in narcotics is simply not the sort of
conquer” or “piecemeal” approach. reasonable inference required to support an
intrusion by the police upon an individual’s
We have repeatedly held that furtive personal security.” The court opined that
gestures alone are not a sufficient basis for probable cause required something more—
probable cause. While “[f]urtive movements perhaps knowledge of the contents of Sibron’s
are valid indicia of mens rea,” they must be conversations or the observation of a
“coupled with reliable information or other transaction. When the officer approached
suspicious circumstances relating the suspect Sibron, however, “[n]othing resembling
to the evidence of crime” to constitute probable cause existed.”
probable cause. Consequently, the focus of our
analysis is whether Marcopoulos’s furtive We recognize that Sibron involved
gestures, when considered alongside his brief probable cause to arrest, rather than probable
appearance at a known narcotics cause to conduct a search. Sibron also did not
establishment, give rise to probable cause. For implicate the automobile exception; at the
the following reasons, we conclude that they time he was searched, Sibron was standing just
do not. outside of a restaurant. Nevertheless, the fact
that Marcopoulos was searched in connection
A good starting point for this discussion is with, rather than outright arrested for, a drug
Sibron v. New York, a United States Supreme offense does not lessen the requirements of
Court case which explored reasonable probable cause. The same goes for the fact that
searches in the drug context. In Sibron, a his vehicle, rather than his person, was
police officer surveilled the defendant for eight searched, as the automobile exception neither
hours, observing conversations between him reduces nor eliminates the probable cause
and several other people—all of whom the standard.
officer knew to be narcotics addicts. The
officer did not overhear the contents of these We interpret Sibron to severely limit the
conversations; observe any transactions; or probative value of Marcopoulos’s presence at
see, smell, or otherwise detect the presence of Diddy’s. As in Sibron, the officer in this case
drugs. The uniformed officer eventually was not privy to Marcopoulos’s business within
approached Sibron, said, “You know what I’m the bar. Though Officer Oliver knew Diddy’s to
after,” and reached into Sibron’s pocket, be a hotbed of narcotics activity, this activity
confiscating several envelopes of heroin. was never even remotely linked to
Marcopoulos. Oliver did not witness
The court ruled the search unreasonable Marcopoulos initiate a transaction; engage
50 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
