¶1(dissenting).
¶2What I cannot digest is the contradiction in the arrest of the appellant.
¶3I.
¶4Reasoning backwards I find my Brother JOHNSON deducing:
“Here, the information within the knowledge of the police officers at the time of appellant’s arrest clearly furnished grounds for a reasonable cause for believing that appellant had committed the robbery in question. It was much more than a mere suspicion. … ”
¶5Yet the main factual premise for this conclusion is stated:
“Officer Ralph Jordan testified that … a young blonde female, later identified as Diana Crosby, answered the door; that he asked her to bring everyone in the house downstairs and that she returned a few minutes later with appellant; and that he then informed them that they were under arrest. … ”
¶6If it was necessary to bring “everyone” out of the house how can it be said that there was knowledge (within the constitutional standards) that appellant was present in the premises ?
¶7II.
¶8Perhaps it was reasonable to expect that the appellant was in his own home. However, I fail to see fresh pursuit or any other recognized exception to justify dragging him out of his home without a warrant.