Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary
401 U.S. 560 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An otherwise illegal arrest cannot be validated by a police officer's good faith reliance on a radio bulletin from another law enforcement agency if the agency that issued the bulletin did not have probable cause for the arrest. The legality of the arrest depends on the probable cause possessed by the instigating officer, not the arresting officer.
Facts:
- On November 23, 1964, several businesses in Saratoga, Wyoming, including the Rustic Bar and Shively's Hardware, were burglarized.
- The following day, Carbon County Sheriff C. W. Ogburn received a tip from an informant implicating Harold Whiteley and Jack Daley in the burglaries.
- Based on this tip, Sheriff Ogburn signed a sworn complaint before a justice of the peace, stating only the conclusion that Whiteley and Daley had committed the crime, without providing any underlying facts or details about the informant's tip.
- The justice of the peace issued an arrest warrant based solely on Sheriff Ogburn's conclusory complaint.
- Sheriff Ogburn then broadcasted a statewide radio bulletin detailing the suspects' names, descriptions, their probable vehicle, and a list of stolen items.
- Late that night, a police officer in Laramie, Wyoming, acting in reliance on the radio bulletin, stopped a car matching the description driven by Whiteley and Daley.
- The Laramie officer arrested both men.
- A subsequent search of the car uncovered tools and old coins that were identified as stolen from Shively's Hardware.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold Whiteley was convicted in a Wyoming state trial court after his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car was denied.
- The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, with Whiteley acting as appellant.
- Whiteley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, which denied the petition.
- Whiteley, as appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arrest made by a police officer in objective reliance on a statewide police bulletin violate the Fourth Amendment if the bulletin was issued based on an arrest warrant that was not supported by probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. The initial arrest warrant was invalid because it was based on a complaint that contained only the sheriff's conclusion and lacked any factual information from which the magistrate could independently determine that probable cause existed. While the Laramie police were entitled to act on the radio bulletin, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest. The legality of the arrest ultimately rests on whether the officer who issued the bulletin, Sheriff Ogburn, had probable cause. Since the complaint shows he did not provide sufficient facts to the magistrate for the warrant, and no other information corroborating the informant's tip was present, the arrest was unconstitutional, and the evidence seized as a result should have been excluded.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No, the arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision is a gross miscarriage of justice that unnecessarily turns a professional criminal loose. The sheriff in a sparsely populated county acted reasonably on a tip, and the Laramie police had probable cause to arrest the men once they were stopped. The officers had a right to stop the car based on the alert, and once they confirmed Jack Daley's identity and learned Harold Whiteley had given a false name, they had independent probable cause for an arrest. The subsequent search was therefore permissible, and it is a travesty to reverse the conviction of a known felon on such grounds.
Analysis:
This case establishes a key aspect of the 'fellow officer' or 'collective knowledge' doctrine, holding that the constitutionality of an arrest made by one officer based on another's request is judged by the information known to the requesting officer. It prevents law enforcement from laundering a lack of probable cause by simply transmitting a request to another officer who is unaware of the initial deficiency. This decision reinforces the principle that probable cause must exist at the source of the government action and that an arresting officer's good faith cannot cure a Fourth Amendment violation committed by the instigating officer.
