The standard applicable for determining whether the facts of the case support an officer's probable cause assessment at the time of the challenged arrest and search is no less stringent than that required to be shown a magistrate for the issuance of a warrant. Barber v. State, 611 S.W.2d 67, 68 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Ochs v. State, 543 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976) cert. denied 429 U.S. 1062, 97 S.Ct. 786, 50 L.Ed.2d 778 (1977). It has been held that probable cause to search or arrest exists where the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the officer on the scene and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information would lead a man of reasonable caution and prudence to believe that he will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime, or that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime. Brown v. State, supra, at 110; see also Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280, 284 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Jones v. State, 565 S.W.2d 934, 935 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). However, the mere inarticulable hunch, suspicion or good faith of the officer is insufficient to constitute probable cause.
A majority of this Court, however, has adopted the rule that a defendant who seeks to suppress evidence of crime must show that some personal Fourth Amendment right of his was implicated in the police actions leading to seizure of the evidence. See Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (1980); Manry v. State, 621 S.W.2d 619 (1981). In other words, an accused in Texas must show that he himself had some "legitimate expectation of privacy" that was improperly intruded upon by agents of the State.
Generally, an officer has probable cause to arrest when the facts and circumstances within his knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information would warrant a reasonable and prudent person's believing that a particular person has committed or is committing a crime. Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280, 284 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). For a warrantless arrest pursuant to article 14.01, however, probable cause for arrest must arise from facts within the arresting officer's own knowledge and observations, not from hearsay information.
In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause, the Court will look to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Woodward v. State, 668 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982) (opinion on rehearing); Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980). The standards applicable to reviewing the factual basis underlying an officer's probable cause assessment are as stringent as the standards applied to a magistrate's assessment of probable cause before issuing a warrant.
'Delgado v. State, supra, citing Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Maloy v. State, 582 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Hernandez v. State, 523 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975). See also Carlock v. State, 609 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980).
The standard is "probable cause," not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." See Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Maloy v. State, 582 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Hernandez v. State, 523 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975). Thus the fact that the hypodermic syringe in the instant case later was shown by a laboratory report not to contain a controlled substance, contrary to Officer Cade's impression at the scene, is of no consequence.
It is undisputed that the arrest was without a warrant and the trial court so found. The trial court further found that the police did have probable cause for the arrest on Potomac Street, and in this the court is supported by the record. See Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980). There does not appear to be a federal constitutional violation under the circumstances here presented.
The facts and information already known to the officer, his observations upon stopping the suspects and appellant's unlikely explanation of their presence on Northwest Highway warranted the officer in believing that appellant and his companion had committed an offense. See Burks v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142; Britton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.Cr.App., 1978); Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App., 1980). We find probable cause existed for arresting appellant and evidence obtained incidental to that arrest was admissible.
In Texas, a peace officer's authority to make a warrantless arrest is controlled exclusively by statute. Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Honeycutt v. State, 499 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973). The Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes very few exceptions to the general requirement that a peace officer obtain a warrant before making an arrest.
" Under that statute the Texas court has held that an officer must have probable cause to arrest under the statute but that no warrant need be obtained. See Lewis v. State, 598 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Crim. App. 1980). In the case at bar the evidence establishes, and the defendant does not contest, that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant.