Ervin v. State

Per Curiam. Appellant, John R. Ervin, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by Judge Albert E. Sklar, sitting without a jury, of storehouse breaking and sentenced to not more than two years in the Maryland Correctional Institution, consecutive with the sentence he is now serving in that institution. He appeals from the judgment of the court. On or about November 6, 1966, the place of business owned by Frederick W. Cox, Sr., located at 1101 James Street, in Baltimore, and operated under the name of Fritz Auto, was broken into and among the items missing were a portable T.V. set, valued at $100.00; a checkwriter, valued at $75.00; a portable radio, valued at $10.00; and the balance of a check-book, valued at $7.50.

A number of checks remained in the check-book at the time it was stolen. On November 7, 1966, Officer Howard Saukitis, in company with Officer Fred Entz, was cruising the area of Poppleton and Booth Streets when he observed appellant and a companion ⁴⁵ standing in an alley, approximately fifty feet away. When appellant saw the police car, he threw several papers to the ground and fled with his companion. Officer Saukitis recovered the papers, which were found to be checks stamped with the firm name of Fritz Auto.

The police officers, having received information prior thereto, that a burglary had taken place at Fritz Auto, pursued appellant and his companion and arrested them. Following his arrest, appellant was taken to police headquarters where he gave a statement to the police. In the statement,, he admitted taking the items previously mentioned as missing from Fritz Auto and stated that he had them stored in the basement of an abandoned house where he was staying. He took the police to that location where the goods were recovered.

I Appellant’s first contention is that his arrest was illegal since the police officers had no knowledge or suspicion of any felony committed by him, nor did they observe any misdemeanor committed in their presence. There is no merit to this contention. When first observed by the two police officers, appellant and another man were acting in a suspicious manner. Upon observing the police, appellant was seen to throw some papers on the ground and he and his. companion fled.

The officers picked up the papers which were checks stamped with the name of Fritz Auto, a place of business previously burglarized, and of which the police officers had prior information. With this information in hand, the officers pursued appellant and his companion and arrested them. It is well established that a police officer may arrest without a warrant if the arresting officer has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person arrested committed the crime. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.

Gaudio and Bucci v. State, 1 Md. App. 455, 463 , 230 A. 2d 700 (1967); Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 479, 481, 235 A. 2d 567 (1967). Here there was probable cause for the arrest. ⁴⁶ Moreover, the legality of the arrest is immaterial since no fruits of the arrest were received in evidence against appellant at the trial; the checks offered in evidence having been thrown away