Cited by

168, 171 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 269 , -34 (1963).

168, 171 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 269 , -34 (1963).

Probable cause for an arrest has been defined to be “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.” Garske v. United States, 1 F.2d 620, 623 (8th Cir.1924) as cited in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.

543 (1925); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260

State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263

State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260

Cf. State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260

See, e. g., State v. Cox, 294 Minn. 252 , State v. Bean, 280 Minn. 35 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , , certiorari denied, 375 U.S. 867 , 84 S.Ct.

for a misdemeanor without a warrant must be a judgment based on personal knowledge acquired at the time through the senses, or inferences properly to be drawn from the testimony of the senses.” The test, then, for the lawfulness of plaintiff’s arrest is whether it was made with “probable cause.” The principle of “probable cause for arrest” was discussed at length by this court in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. 2d 94 (1963).

1 State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. 2d 94 (1963); State v. Collins, 270 Minn. 581 , State v. LaJeunesse, 280 Minn. 381 , State v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223 , , certiorari denied, 396 U. S. 850 , 90 S. Ct. 109

State v. Sorenson, supra; State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249, 252 , State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. 2d 94 (1963); State v. Cox, 294 Minn. 252, 256

The trial court’s disposition of these objections is supported by a number of recent decisions, including State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. 2d 94 (1963); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 51 , certiorari denied, 397 U. S. 1049 , 90 S. Ct. 1381 , 25 L. ed. 2d 662 (1970); State v. Hayes, 292 Minn. 399

What is reasonable must necessarily depend upon the facts of each case.” In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , this court emphasized the requirement of reasonableness, saying: “To require a high degree of technical competency on the part of the average police officer, i.e., that expected of the prosecutor, would be an unfair and unreasonable standard.” In Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797

State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 268 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 333 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. (2d) 94.

In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 268 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 333 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. (2d) 94, we held that police officers may not ordinarily make searches incident to simple traffic violations, and in State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249, 254 , 141 N. W. (2d) 124, 127 , we held: “* * * A search for evidence in d

This court, in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 331 , approved the following language: «* * * [pjrobable cause is not to be evaluated from a remote vantage point of a library, but rather from the viewpoint of a prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest.” Here, the arresting officer could reasonably infer from

State v. Campbell, 281 Minn. 1 , 161 N. W. (2d) 47 ; State v. Harrison, 279 Minn. 310 , 156 N. W. (2d) 763 ; State v. Holmes, 273 Minn. 223 , 140 N. W. (2d) 610 ; State v. Collins, 270 Minn. 581 , 132 N. W. (2d) 802 ; State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 .

As we cautioned in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , and reemphasized in State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315 , 144 N. W. (2d) 815 , a felony arrest and search should not be made without a warrant unless there is a compelling necessity to do so.

Ogg v. Tahash, 273 Minn. 187 , 140 N. W. (2d) 692 ; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , 134 N. W. (2d) 115 ; State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. (2d) 94.

e v. Bean, 280 Minn. 35, 41 , 157 N. W. (2d) 736, 740 , is— “* * * whether an officer in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his observations and information and guided by all of his *165 police experiences, could reasonably have believed that a crime had been pommitted by the person to be arrested.” See, also, State v. Olson, 271 Minn. 50, 56 , 135 N. W. (2d) 181, 185 ; State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 330 .

The contention of the state is that the search and seizure involved in obtaining these items were well within the limitations permitted by the holding of this court in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 .

*42 United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 , 85 S. Ct. 741 , 13 L. ed. (2d) 864; State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S.Ct.

“(3) When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it; or “(4) Upon a charge made upon reasonable cause of the commission of a felony by the person arrested.” This court has said: *316 “The constitutional mandate requiring ‘probable cause’ and the statutory standard of ‘reasonable cause’ are synonymous.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 330 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11

In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 269 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327, 334 , certiorari denied, 375 U. S. 867 , 84 S. Ct. 141 , 11 L. ed. (2d) 94, as in the instant case, defendant claimed that when he gave his consent he was merely submitting to the color of police authority, and this court held: *143 “* * * Failure to object to a search is evidence of consent