By: dmc-admin//December 26, 2001//
Mark Lowe appeals a judgment convicting him of several drug offenses. Lowe argues that because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. Therefore, Lowe contends that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He also challenges his conviction as multiplicitous and violative of double jeopardy. Lowe further argues that he did not receive a judicial determination to justify or support his warrantless arrest and that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by finding there was probable cause.
We agree with the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. There was probable cause to stop Lowe and reasonable suspicion to continue the traffic stop. There was also probable cause to arrest Lowe and search his car. We further agree that the charges are not multiplicitous under the standards for determining double jeopardy challenges. Lowe’s erroneous exercise of discretion argument merely rehashes his probable cause argument. Lowe’s other contention is not sufficiently developed to be susceptible to appellate review.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
This opinion will not be published.
Dist III, St. Croix County, Needham, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Mark R. Lowe, Plymouth
For Respondent: Eric G. Johnson, Hudson; Warren D. Weinstein, Madison